In re Eduardo S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Eduardo S.

207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8977

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 935 (In re Eduardo S.) 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 Eduardo S., 207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Bivona, J.), entered July 19, 1992, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, reinstated a prior order awarding custody of respondent to the Sullivan County Department of Social Services for placement in a residential facility for one year.

Respondent challenges his placement in a residential facility as the result of his being adjudicated a person in need of supervision. His challenge has, however, been rendered moot due to the expiration of the one-year placement period that was directed in Family Court’s order. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., 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

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Bivona, J.), entered July 19, 1992, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, reinstated a prior order awarding custody of respondent to the Sullivan County Department of Social Services for placement in a residential facility for one year.

Respondent challenges his placement in a residential facility as the result of his being adjudicated a person in need of supervision. His challenge has, however, been rendered moot due to the expiration of the one-year placement period that was directed in Family Court’s order. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-eduardo-s-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack