In re Anthony C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Anthony C.

99 A.D.3d 798, 951 N.Y.2d 884

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

DecidedOctober 10, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 798 (In re Anthony C.) 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 Anthony C., 99 A.D.3d 798, 951 N.Y.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[799]*799The appeal must be dismissed, since the portion of the order that is appealed from, which directed the temporary removal of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, has been rendered academic, in light of a subsequent permanency order dated October 17, 2011, continuing the placement of the child, and the orders of disposition dated November 1, 2011 (see Matter of Jovan W. v Ticarrah W.P., 92 AD3d 888, 889 [2012]; Matter of Nicholas B., 26 AD3d 764 [2006]; Matter of Jabarry W., 24 AD3d 218, 219 [2005]; see also Matter of Javier R., 43 AD3d 1 [2007]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, this matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

[799]*799The appeal must be dismissed, since the portion of the order that is appealed from, which directed the temporary removal of the subject child pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, has been rendered academic, in light of a subsequent permanency order dated October 17, 2011, continuing the placement of the child, and the orders of disposition dated November 1, 2011 (see Matter of Jovan W. v Ticarrah W.P., 92 AD3d 888, 889 [2012]; Matter of Nicholas B., 26 AD3d 764 [2006]; Matter of Jabarry W., 24 AD3d 218, 219 [2005]; see also Matter of Javier R., 43 AD3d 1 [2007]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, this matter does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 798, 951 N.Y.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anthony-c-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack