In re Tishauna Patricia N.

68 A.D.3d 1119, 890 N.Y.2d 346
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

The mother’s appeal from the order denying her motion to reinstate visitation with the subject children has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of the Family Court reinstating her visitation with the subject children and, [1120]*1120therefore, must be dismissed (see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 637-638 [2008]; Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d 600 [2007]; People ex rel A.E.F. v K.T.L., 40 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]).

The mother’s contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in approving a permanency goal of placement for adoption for the subject children is not properly before this Court because that issue was not determined in the order appealed from. Dillon, J.E, Santucci, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

In re Tishauna Patricia N., 68 A.D.3d 1119, 890 N.Y.2d 346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 1119 (In re Tishauna Patricia N.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Saldivar v. Cabrera
109 A.D.3d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Greenidge v. Henry
109 A.D.3d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Ogunbayo v. Administration for Children's Services
106 A.D.3d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Padin v. Padin
103 A.D.3d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re Anthony B.-A.
88 A.D.3d 702 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re Joseph A.
78 A.D.3d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)