In re Lindsay BB.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lindsay BB.

92 A.D.3d 1095, 939 N.Y.2d 582

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 1095 (In re Lindsay BB.) 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 Lindsay BB., 92 A.D.3d 1095, 939 N.Y.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

— Stein, J.

Respondents are the parents of several children including, as relevant here, a son, Vincent BB. (born in 1994). In May 2010, petitioner filed violation petitions against respondents for their failure to comply with a dispositional order in two neglect proceedings. During a court appearance related to such proceedings, petitioner informed Family Court and the parties that a psychiatrist had recommended that Vincent — who was then residing in a kinship foster care home in Florida — take certain prescription medication. Ultimately, Family Court issued an order authorizing petitioner to consent to Vincent’s prescription medication over respondents’ objections. Respondents now appeal.

Following entry of the order appealed from and during the pendency of this appeal, Family Court terminated petitioner’s custody of Vincent and permanently discharged the child back to the custody of respondents. Inasmuch as petitioner no longer has custody of the child, the order authorizing petitioner to consent to his receiving medication is no longer effective. Thus, the appeals are moot (see Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d [1096]*1096974, 975 [2008]) and, under the particular circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

— Stein, J.

Respondents are the parents of several children including, as relevant here, a son, Vincent BB. (born in 1994). In May 2010, petitioner filed violation petitions against respondents for their failure to comply with a dispositional order in two neglect proceedings. During a court appearance related to such proceedings, petitioner informed Family Court and the parties that a psychiatrist had recommended that Vincent — who was then residing in a kinship foster care home in Florida — take certain prescription medication. Ultimately, Family Court issued an order authorizing petitioner to consent to Vincent’s prescription medication over respondents’ objections. Respondents now appeal.

Following entry of the order appealed from and during the pendency of this appeal, Family Court terminated petitioner’s custody of Vincent and permanently discharged the child back to the custody of respondents. Inasmuch as petitioner no longer has custody of the child, the order authorizing petitioner to consent to his receiving medication is no longer effective. Thus, the appeals are moot (see Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d [1096]*1096974, 975 [2008]) and, under the particular circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 1095, 939 N.Y.2d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lindsay-bb-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack