In re Cheyenne J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Cheyenne J.

103 A.D.3d 467, 960 N.Y.S.2d 24

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 467 (In re Cheyenne J.) 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 Cheyenne J., 103 A.D.3d 467, 960 N.Y.S.2d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2010, which, among other things, directed that respondent father stay away from the mother and her home, and refrain from communicating with her by any means, until December 1, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from permanency hearing order (same court and Judge), entered on or about December 2, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Since the order of protection being challenged has expired by its own terms, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Louis N. [Dawn O.], 98 AD3d 918 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon M. [Luis M.], 94 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2012]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that the Family Court’s order was authorized by Family Court Act § 1056 in the context of a neglect proceeding based on allegations of domestic violence in the child’s presence, and that appellant’s evidentiary objection is unpreserved. Moreover, the mother’s testimony corroborated the statements in the 18 domestic incident reports admitted into evidence. Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

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

Appeal from order of protection, Family Court, New York County (Susan Knipps, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2010, which, among other things, directed that respondent father stay away from the mother and her home, and refrain from communicating with her by any means, until December 1, 2010, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from permanency hearing order (same court and Judge), entered on or about December 2, 2009, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

Since the order of protection being challenged has expired by its own terms, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Louis N. [Dawn O.], 98 AD3d 918 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Brandon M. [Luis M.], 94 AD3d 520 [1st Dept 2012]). Were we to reach the merits, we would find that the Family Court’s order was authorized by Family Court Act § 1056 in the context of a neglect proceeding based on allegations of domestic violence in the child’s presence, and that appellant’s evidentiary objection is unpreserved. Moreover, the mother’s testimony corroborated the statements in the 18 domestic incident reports admitted into evidence. Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 467, 960 N.Y.S.2d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cheyenne-j-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack