In re Jamela B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jamela B.

28 A.D.3d 478, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579

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

DecidedApril 4, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 478 (In re Jamela B.) 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 Jamela B., 28 A.D.3d 478, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Schauer, R.), dated January 18, 2005, which, after a hearing, placed the subject child with the parents, [479]*479Josephine S. and Mamadu B., in Connecticut and directed the petitioner to continue supervision of the subject child until October 10, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner argues that the Family Court erred in placing the subject child with the parents in Connecticut without following the procedures specified in the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. However, this appeal has been rendered academic since the order appealed from has expired by its own terms and the petitioner is no longer responsible for supervision of the subject child (see Social Services Law § 374-a, art V [a]; Matter of Anthony O., 8 AD3d 573 [2004]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, this case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Schauer, R.), dated January 18, 2005, which, after a hearing, placed the subject child with the parents, [479]*479Josephine S. and Mamadu B., in Connecticut and directed the petitioner to continue supervision of the subject child until October 10, 2005.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner argues that the Family Court erred in placing the subject child with the parents in Connecticut without following the procedures specified in the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children. However, this appeal has been rendered academic since the order appealed from has expired by its own terms and the petitioner is no longer responsible for supervision of the subject child (see Social Services Law § 374-a, art V [a]; Matter of Anthony O., 8 AD3d 573 [2004]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, this case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Santucci and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 478, 811 N.Y.S.2d 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jamela-b-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack