Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.)

2023 NY Slip Op 05675
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 2023
DocketDocket No. N5102/21 Appeal No. 994-994A Case No. 2023-00626
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2023 NY Slip Op 05675 (Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.)) 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
Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.), 2023 NY Slip Op 05675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.) (2023 NY Slip Op 05675)
Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.)
2023 NY Slip Op 05675
Decided on November 14, 2023
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: November 14, 2023
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.

Docket No. N5102/21 Appeal No. 994-994A Case No. 2023-00626

[*1]In the Matter of Trinity Y., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Taneisha U., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.


Larry Bachner, New York, for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Attorney for the child.



Order, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2023, which, inter alia, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the underlying petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from that part of the order which denied respondent's motion to modify a temporary order of protection dated August 10, 2022, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Application by respondent's assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on this appeal.

Respondent mother's challenge to the order of protection dated August 10, 2022, is moot, as the order expired by its own terms on September 12, 2022, and was succeeded by subsequent orders of protection (see Matter of Camille L. [Dawn F.], 170 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2019]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 14, 2023



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

Related

Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.)
2023 NY Slip Op 05675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2023 NY Slip Op 05675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-trinity-y-taneisha-u-nyappdiv-2023.