Matter of T.R. (Jaquasia G.)

2024 NY Slip Op 02759

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: May 16, 2024
• Docket: Docket No. NN-05575/21, NN-05574/21 Appeal No. 2302 Case No. 2023-01526
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of T.R. (Jaquasia G.) (2024 NY Slip Op 02759)

Matter of T.R. (Jaquasia G.)

2024 NY Slip Op 02759

Decided on May 16, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: May 16, 2024
Before: Webber, J.P., Kern, Shulman, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, JJ.

Docket No. NN-05575/21, NN-05574/21 Appeal No. 2302 Case No. 2023-01526

[*1]In the Matter of T.R. and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Jaquasia G., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

The Reiniger Law Firm, New York (Douglas H. Reiniger of counsel), for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Philip W. Young of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Polixene Petrakopoulos of counsel), attorney for the children.

Appeal from order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Clark V. Richardson, J.), entered on or about March 6, 2023, which, following a finding of neglect, temporarily placed the subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services until the completion of the next permanency hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The mother's appeal from the order of disposition is rendered moot by the fact that the order was superseded by a later permanency hearing order, which continued the children's placement in foster care and did not change the permanency goal of reunification with the parent (see Matter of Gabrielle N., 158 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2018], compare Matter of Alexander L., 109 AD3d 767, 767 [1st Dept 2013], lv dismissed 22 NY3d 1056 [2014]). Were we to consider the merits of the mother's appeal, we would find that the evidence established that the children's continued placement in foster care was in their best interests (see Matter of N.V., 203 AD3d 529, 529 [1st Dept 2022]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 16, 2024