In re Angelina S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Angelina S.

304 A.D.2d 833, 757 N.Y.S.2d 862

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 833 (In re Angelina S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Angelina S., 304 A.D.2d 833, 757 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated February 26, 2002, as placed the appellant in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Dutchess County for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that the Family Court abused its [834]*834discretion in placing her in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Dutchess County is academic since the dispositional portion of the order has expired pursuant to its terms (see Matter of George A., 257 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]; Matter of Jessica MM., 256 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated February 26, 2002, as placed the appellant in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Dutchess County for a period of one year.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant’s contention that the Family Court abused its [834]*834discretion in placing her in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Dutchess County is academic since the dispositional portion of the order has expired pursuant to its terms (see Matter of George A., 257 AD2d 620, 621 [1999]; Matter of Jessica MM., 256 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1998]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 833, 757 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-angelina-s-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack