Matter of Zarae E. (Jaysayuri R.V.)
This text of Matter of Zarae E. (Jaysayuri R.V.) (Matter of Zarae E. (Jaysayuri R.V.)) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Matter of Zarae E. (Jaysayuri R.V.)
2026 NY Slip Op 04142
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Zarae E., a Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Jaysayuri R.V., Respondent-Appellant-Respondent, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Docket No. NN-13848/25, NA-25226/24|Appeal No. 6975-6976|Case No. 2025-06872, 2025-07709|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Family Justice Law Center, New York (Sarah Danielle Ortlip-Sommers of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York (ChloÉ K. Moon of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Aleza Ross, Patchogue, attorney for the child.
Appeals from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Angel Cruz, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2025, which granted in part and denied in part respondent mother's motion to compel discovery, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about November 25, 2025, which granted the motion of Administration for Children's Services to stay enforcement of the October 23, 2025 discovery order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
The appeals from the discovery order are moot and/or academic in view of the dismissal of the underlying neglect proceeding on consent (see Matter of Muhamad Omar W. [Jessica W.], 204 AD3d 453, 453-454 [1st Dept 2022]). The appeal from the stay order is necessarily moot as well as it arose from the underlying discovery order (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).
Contrary to the mother's contention, the narrow exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see id. at 714-715; Matter of Santiago v Berlin, 111 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2013]). Family Court's determination denying part of the relief requested by the mother with respect to production of certain documents was a fact-specific determination and thus unlikely to recur (see Matter of Darcy M. [Gethylee C.], 195 AD3d 719, 720 [2d Dept 2021]). Nor will the issues presented by the mother typically evade review, and, in any event, they do not reflect substantial and novel issues (see Matter of Hearst Corp., 50 NY2d at 714-715). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matter of Zarae E. (Jaysayuri R.V.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-zarae-e-jaysayuri-rv-nyappdiv-2026.