In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

10 A.D.3d 400, 780 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 9, 2004·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated May 6, 2003, which, after a hearing, extended placement of the subject child with the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months, until April 1, 2004.

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

The appeal from the order, which extended the placement of the child for a period of 12 months, must be dismissed as academic because the placement period has expired (see Matter of Brandon S., 305 AD2d 609, 610 [2003]; Matter of Neftaly R., 283 AD2d 579, 580 [2001]; Matter of Angelina E., 213 AD2d 346, 347 [1995]; Matter of Tanya M., 207 AD2d 656 [1994]; Matter of Byron A., 112 AD2d 30 [1985]).

In any event, we note that the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother was presently unable to care for her child and that the continuation of foster care was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [iv] [B]; Matter of Glenn B., 303 AD2d 498 [2003]; Matter of Antonelli v Department of Social Servs., 155 AD2d 598, [1989] cf. Matter of Marcel A., 254 AD2d 416 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), dated May 6, 2003, which, after a hearing, extended placement of the subject child with the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months, until April 1, 2004.

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

The appeal from the order, which extended the placement of the child for a period of 12 months, must be dismissed as academic because the placement period has expired (see Matter of Brandon S., 305 AD2d 609, 610 [2003]; Matter of Neftaly R., 283 AD2d 579, 580 [2001]; Matter of Angelina E., 213 AD2d 346, 347 [1995]; Matter of Tanya M., 207 AD2d 656 [1994]; Matter of Byron A., 112 AD2d 30 [1985]).

In any event, we note that the petitioner met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mother was presently unable to care for her child and that the continuation of foster care was in the child’s best interests (see Family Ct Act § 1055 [b] [iv] [B]; Matter of Glenn B., 303 AD2d 498 [2003]; Matter of Antonelli v Department of Social Servs., 155 AD2d 598, [1989] cf. Matter of Marcel A., 254 AD2d 416 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, 10 A.D.3d 400, 780 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

10 A.D.3d 400 (In re Mary Veronica R. Suffolk County Department of Social Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related