In re Baby Boy R. Norma Iris R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Baby Boy R. Norma Iris R.

307 A.D.2d 360, 762 N.Y.S.2d 817

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

DecidedJuly 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 360 (In re Baby Boy R. Norma Iris R.) 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 Baby Boy R. Norma Iris R., 307 A.D.2d 360, 762 N.Y.S.2d 817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the nonparty Law Guardian appeals, and the intervenors, Carmen P. and Felix P., separately appeal, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated December 13, 2002, which denied, without a hearing, the Law Guardian’s motion to reopen the permanency proceeding.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In Matter of Wesley R. (307 AD2d 360 [2003] [decided herewith]), we concluded that a new hearing as to the permanency plan for the child is warranted in light of the change of circumstances that has occurred since the date of the prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055-a. Because that is the relief requested by the appellants herein, the present appeals have been rendered academic (see Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 AD2d 651 [1995]). No exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Smith and Adams, 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 10, the nonparty Law Guardian appeals, and the intervenors, Carmen P. and Felix P., separately appeal, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Elkins, J.), dated December 13, 2002, which denied, without a hearing, the Law Guardian’s motion to reopen the permanency proceeding.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

In Matter of Wesley R. (307 AD2d 360 [2003] [decided herewith]), we concluded that a new hearing as to the permanency plan for the child is warranted in light of the change of circumstances that has occurred since the date of the prior hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055-a. Because that is the relief requested by the appellants herein, the present appeals have been rendered academic (see Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 AD2d 651 [1995]). No exception to the mootness doctrine applies. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 360, 762 N.Y.S.2d 817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-baby-boy-r-norma-iris-r-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack