In re Francis S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Francis S.

67 A.D.3d 1442, 887 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedNovember 13, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1442 (In re Francis 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 Francis S., 67 A.D.3d 1442, 887 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Martha E. Mulroy, J.), entered January 15, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order placed respondents’ children in the custody of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent parents each appeal from an order that, inter alia, placed their children in the custody of petitioner. We dismiss the appeals as moot inasmuch as the order has since expired by its own terms and was superseded by an order entered in July 2008 following a permanency hearing (see Matter of Giovanni K., 62 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Matter of Sasha M., 43 AD3d 1401 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Martha E. Mulroy, J.), entered January 15, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order placed respondents’ children in the custody of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent parents each appeal from an order that, inter alia, placed their children in the custody of petitioner. We dismiss the appeals as moot inasmuch as the order has since expired by its own terms and was superseded by an order entered in July 2008 following a permanency hearing (see Matter of Giovanni K., 62 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 715 [2009]). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Matter of Sasha M., 43 AD3d 1401 [2007]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1442, 887 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-francis-s-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack