In re Anthony C.

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

Opinion

[799] The 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

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

99 A.D.3d 798 (In re Anthony C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
409 N.E.2d 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
In re Jabarry W.
24 A.D.3d 218 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Javier R.
43 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Jovan W.
92 A.D.3d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)