In re Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Mitchell

267 A.D.2d 459, 700 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13296

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 459 (In re Mitchell) 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 Mitchell, 267 A.D.2d 459, 700 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered July 27, 1998, which, inter alia, directed it to supervise and provide services to the mother of [460]*460an unborn child to protect the unborn child from the mother’s chronic drug use.

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

The fetus in question has been born and a subsequent order of protection was entered based upon the mother’s post-natal actions. Thus, any determination by this Court of the issues presented will not affect the rights of the parties to this proceeding, and the matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Schmidt, 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 Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Freundlich, J.), entered July 27, 1998, which, inter alia, directed it to supervise and provide services to the mother of [460]*460an unborn child to protect the unborn child from the mother’s chronic drug use.

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

The fetus in question has been born and a subsequent order of protection was entered based upon the mother’s post-natal actions. Thus, any determination by this Court of the issues presented will not affect the rights of the parties to this proceeding, and the matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 459, 700 N.Y.S.2d 852, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack