In re Justin S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Justin S.

24 A.D.3d 1304, 805 N.Y.S.2d 873

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered January 12, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order extended respondent’s placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months from October 21, 2004 through October 20, 2005.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: “This appeal has been rendered moot since the extension of placement order by its own terms expired on [October 20, 2005], and any determination of this Court will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this controversy” (Matter of Jonathan F., 3 AD3d 336, 336 [2004]; see Matter of [1305]*1305Evan P., 1 AD3d 831 [2003]; Matter of Joseph YY., 306 AD2d 584, 585 [2003]). There is no basis to address respondent’s challenge to the extension of placement under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, 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, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered January 12, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order extended respondent’s placement with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months from October 21, 2004 through October 20, 2005.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: “This appeal has been rendered moot since the extension of placement order by its own terms expired on [October 20, 2005], and any determination of this Court will not affect the rights of the parties with respect to this controversy” (Matter of Jonathan F., 3 AD3d 336, 336 [2004]; see Matter of [1305]*1305Evan P., 1 AD3d 831 [2003]; Matter of Joseph YY., 306 AD2d 584, 585 [2003]). There is no basis to address respondent’s challenge to the extension of placement under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.

In re Justin S., 24 A.D.3d 1304, 805 N.Y.S.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

24 A.D.3d 1304 (In re Justin S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related