Opinion
527279
12-26-2019
In the MATTER OF KING H., Alleged to be a Neglected Child. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; v. Shaquille H., Appellant, et al., Respondent.
Matthew C. Hug, Albany, for appellant. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Schenectady (Samantha H. Miller of counsel), for Schenectady County Department of Social Services, respondent. Andrew J. Healey, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Matthew C. Hug, Albany, for appellant.
Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Schenectady (Samantha H. Miller of counsel), for Schenectady County Department of Social Services, respondent.
Andrew J. Healey, Schenectady, attorney for the child.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pritzker, J. Respondent Shaquille H. (hereinafter respondent) is the father of the subject child (born in 2018). In July 2018, after petitioner filed a prepetition application for temporary removal pursuant to Family Ct. Act § 1022, the child was placed in petitioner's care and custody pursuant to a decision of Family Court determining that the child would be in imminent danger if he continued to be in respondent's care and custody. That same day, the court issued a temporary order of protection against respondent and in favor of the child, allowing respondent visitation with the child as deemed appropriate by petitioner and under petitioner's supervision. Petitioner thereafter commenced this neglect petition against respondent asserting, among other things, that it would be contrary to the child's best interests to return him to respondent because he failed to provide the child with proper care. Family Court entered an order continuing the child's temporary removal and placement. Respondent appeals.
The proceeding was also brought against the child's mother, but she did not appear on the petition.
We exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal as challenging Family Court's July 27, 2018 order, despite the inaccurate description stating that it is an appeal from the bench decision rendered on July 18, 2018, which is not otherwise appealable (see CPLR 5512[a] ; Family Ct. Act § 1112 ; Matter of Angela F. v. Gail WW. , 146 A.D.3d 1248, 1250 n. 2, 46 N.Y.S.3d 709 [2017] ).
Following the issuance of the appealed-from order, respondent requested a Family Ct. Act § 1028 hearing to determine whether the child should be returned to him. Family Court (Polk, J.) held an evidentiary hearing, after which it continued the temporary removal of the child. Accordingly, this appeal is moot because any decision from this Court "would not result in immediate and practical consequences" ( Matter of Peter T. [Shay S.P.] , 173 A.D.3d 1043, 1045, 105 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see generally Matter of Cheyeanne E. [Scott E.] , 154 A.D.3d 1206, 1206–1207, 63 N.Y.S.3d 585 [2017] ; Matter of Bruce P. , 138 A.D.3d 864, 865, 29 N.Y.S.3d 536 [2016] ; Matter of Angelique L. , 42 A.D.3d 569, 570–571, 840 N.Y.S.2d 811 [2007] ).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.