In re Donovan NN.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Donovan NN.

79 A.D.3d 1316, 911 N.Y.S.2d 686

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 A.D.3d 1316 (In re Donovan NN.) 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 Donovan NN., 79 A.D.3d 1316, 911 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), entered October 28, 2009, which granted petitioner’s application, in three proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 7, to revoke a prior order of probation.

After respondent consented to a finding that he was a person in need of supervision, he was placed on probation for a period of one year ending on February 2, 2010. When petitions were filed alleging that respondent had violated probation and seeking his placement in a residential facility, Family Court awarded temporary custody to the Otsego County Department of Social Services pending the outcome of the petitions. Later, Family Court determined that respondent violated his probation and ordered him to remain in the custody of the Department of Social Services for placement at a residential facility until the expiration of the original term of probation.

On appeal, respondent and his mother do not contest the violation finding, but contend only that Family Court’s placement of respondent was too restrictive. As the dispositional order has expired, however, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Brett W., 62 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]; Matter of Todd B., 4 AD3d 650 [2004]; Matter of Eduardo S., 207 AD2d 935 [1994]), and the record reveals that the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Mercure, J.E, Feters, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), entered October 28, 2009, which granted petitioner’s application, in three proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 7, to revoke a prior order of probation.

After respondent consented to a finding that he was a person in need of supervision, he was placed on probation for a period of one year ending on February 2, 2010. When petitions were filed alleging that respondent had violated probation and seeking his placement in a residential facility, Family Court awarded temporary custody to the Otsego County Department of Social Services pending the outcome of the petitions. Later, Family Court determined that respondent violated his probation and ordered him to remain in the custody of the Department of Social Services for placement at a residential facility until the expiration of the original term of probation.

On appeal, respondent and his mother do not contest the violation finding, but contend only that Family Court’s placement of respondent was too restrictive. As the dispositional order has expired, however, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Brett W., 62 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2009]; Matter of Todd B., 4 AD3d 650 [2004]; Matter of Eduardo S., 207 AD2d 935 [1994]), and the record reveals that the exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Mercure, J.E, Feters, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 1316, 911 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donovan-nn-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack