In re Logan BB.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Logan BB.

82 A.D.3d 1373, 918 N.Y.2d 387

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1373 (In re Logan 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 Logan BB., 82 A.D.3d 1373, 918 N.Y.2d 387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Mercure, J.P.

Respondent is the mother of Logan BB. (born in 2007) and Rhiannon CC. (born in 2004). Petitioner commenced a neglect proceeding against her in April 2008. Respondent thereafter consented to an adjudication of neglect against her, as well as an order in a related custody proceeding that awarded physical custody of Logan to his father. Following a hearing, Family Court issued an order of disposition that, among other things, declined to place Logan or continue him under petitioner’s supervision given the custody order, and continued Rhiannon’s placement in foster care. Respondent now appeals.

[1374]*1374Respondent’s counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment, arguing that no nonfrivolous appellate issues exist. Inasmuch as respondent consented to the adjudication of neglect, she is not aggrieved by those findings and may not raise issues related to them (see Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Matter of Amber W., 22 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Furthermore, respondent’s claim that she did not appreciate the consequences of her consent is unpreserved because she failed to seek vacatur of the fact-finding order in Family Court (see Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 AD3d 977, 978 [2007]). Any challenge to the order of disposition itself is moot, inasmuch as respondent is no longer under petitioner’s supervision and Rhiannon has been returned to her care (see Matter of June MM., 62 AD3d 1216, 1218 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]; Matter of Lashina P., 52 AD3d 293, 293 [2008]). This appeal must accordingly be dismissed, rendering counsel’s application to be relieved of her assignment academic (see Matter of Marshall v Haas, 74 AD3d 1593, 1594 [2010]).

Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Mercure, J.P.

Respondent is the mother of Logan BB. (born in 2007) and Rhiannon CC. (born in 2004). Petitioner commenced a neglect proceeding against her in April 2008. Respondent thereafter consented to an adjudication of neglect against her, as well as an order in a related custody proceeding that awarded physical custody of Logan to his father. Following a hearing, Family Court issued an order of disposition that, among other things, declined to place Logan or continue him under petitioner’s supervision given the custody order, and continued Rhiannon’s placement in foster care. Respondent now appeals.

[1374]*1374Respondent’s counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment, arguing that no nonfrivolous appellate issues exist. Inasmuch as respondent consented to the adjudication of neglect, she is not aggrieved by those findings and may not raise issues related to them (see Matter of Elijah Q., 36 AD3d 974, 975 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809 [2007]; Matter of Amber W., 22 AD3d 967, 968 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 708 [2006]). Furthermore, respondent’s claim that she did not appreciate the consequences of her consent is unpreserved because she failed to seek vacatur of the fact-finding order in Family Court (see Matter of Brittany T., 48 AD3d 995, 997 [2008]; Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 AD3d 977, 978 [2007]). Any challenge to the order of disposition itself is moot, inasmuch as respondent is no longer under petitioner’s supervision and Rhiannon has been returned to her care (see Matter of June MM., 62 AD3d 1216, 1218 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]; Matter of Lashina P., 52 AD3d 293, 293 [2008]). This appeal must accordingly be dismissed, rendering counsel’s application to be relieved of her assignment academic (see Matter of Marshall v Haas, 74 AD3d 1593, 1594 [2010]).

Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1373, 918 N.Y.2d 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-logan-bb-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack