Linda S. v. Westchester County Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Linda S. v. Westchester County Department of Social Services

63 A.D.3d 1164, 881 N.Y.S.2d 308

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

DecidedJune 30, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1164 (Linda S. v. Westchester County Department of Social Services) 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

Linda S. v. Westchester County Department of Social Services, 63 A.D.3d 1164, 881 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the petitioner maternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), entered October 9, 2008, as, without a hearing, dismissed the petition and denied that branch of her motion which was to remove the attorney for the children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding against the Westchester County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS), seeking visitation with her grandchildren. During the pendency of the proceeding, the adoption of the subject children by nonkinship foster parents became final. The Family Court properly determined that, since custody of the children had been permanently transferred from the DSS to the adoptive parents, the DSS was no longer a proper party to the proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 1081 [1]), requiring dismissal of the petition.

Contrary to the Family Court’s conclusion, that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to remove the attorney for the children was not rendered academic by the completion of the adoption process, since it was still possible that the attorney would be required to represent the children in further proceedings relating to the petitioner’s efforts to obtain visitation with [1165]*1165the subject children, including this appeal. The petitioner, however, failed to demonstrate that removal of the attorney for the children was warranted (see Matter of Carballeira v Shumway; 273 AD2d 753, 756 [2000]; Matter of Forsyth v White, 266 AD2d 743, 745 [1999]; Matter of Dewey S., 175 AD2d 920, 921 [1991]) and, thus, that branch of the motion was properly denied.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Prudenti, EJ., Miller, Covello and Austin, 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 6 for grandparent visitation, the petitioner maternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Davidson, J.), entered October 9, 2008, as, without a hearing, dismissed the petition and denied that branch of her motion which was to remove the attorney for the children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding against the Westchester County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the DSS), seeking visitation with her grandchildren. During the pendency of the proceeding, the adoption of the subject children by nonkinship foster parents became final. The Family Court properly determined that, since custody of the children had been permanently transferred from the DSS to the adoptive parents, the DSS was no longer a proper party to the proceeding (see Family Ct Act § 1081 [1]), requiring dismissal of the petition.

Contrary to the Family Court’s conclusion, that branch of the petitioner’s motion which was to remove the attorney for the children was not rendered academic by the completion of the adoption process, since it was still possible that the attorney would be required to represent the children in further proceedings relating to the petitioner’s efforts to obtain visitation with [1165]*1165the subject children, including this appeal. The petitioner, however, failed to demonstrate that removal of the attorney for the children was warranted (see Matter of Carballeira v Shumway; 273 AD2d 753, 756 [2000]; Matter of Forsyth v White, 266 AD2d 743, 745 [1999]; Matter of Dewey S., 175 AD2d 920, 921 [1991]) and, thus, that branch of the motion was properly denied.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Prudenti, EJ., Miller, Covello and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1164, 881 N.Y.S.2d 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linda-s-v-westchester-county-department-of-social-services-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack