In re Michelle J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Michelle J.

252 A.D.2d 503, 675 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7996

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 6, 1998·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the petition of the Commissioner of Social Services to extend the child’s placement for a period of one year.

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

The appeal must be dismissed as academic. Subsequent to the order appealed from, an order terminating the mother’s parental rights was entered. Therefore, any corrective measures which this Court might have taken with respect to the order appealed from would have no practical effect (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes [504]*504T., 208 AD2d 844; see, Matter of Keith C., 226 AD2d 369, 370). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), dated September 30, 1996, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the petition of the Commissioner of Social Services to extend the child’s placement for a period of one year.

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

The appeal must be dismissed as academic. Subsequent to the order appealed from, an order terminating the mother’s parental rights was entered. Therefore, any corrective measures which this Court might have taken with respect to the order appealed from would have no practical effect (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. [Kalisha A.] v Diognes [504]*504T., 208 AD2d 844; see, Matter of Keith C., 226 AD2d 369, 370). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

In re Michelle J., 252 A.D.2d 503, 675 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

252 A.D.2d 503 (In re Michelle J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related