In re Jonathan F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jonathan F.

3 A.D.3d 336, 769 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 336 (In re Jonathan F.) 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 Jonathan F., 3 A.D.3d 336, 769 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an extension of placement and permanency hearing order of the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2002, which directed the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to treat the respondent in aftercare, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

This appeal has been rendered moot since the extension of placement order by its own terms expired on October 18, 2002, and any determination of this Court will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this controversy (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). The circumstances presented do not warrant addressing the issue raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (id. at 714-715). Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Appeal from an extension of placement and permanency hearing order of the Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 18, 2002, which directed the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to treat the respondent in aftercare, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

This appeal has been rendered moot since the extension of placement order by its own terms expired on October 18, 2002, and any determination of this Court will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this controversy (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). The circumstances presented do not warrant addressing the issue raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (id. at 714-715). Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 336, 769 N.Y.S.2d 886, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jonathan-f-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack