Opinion
2019–02980 Docket Nos. N-7844-18, N-7846-18
06-03-2020
In the MATTER OF JOLANI P. (Anonymous). Westchester County Department of Social Services, petitioner-respondent; v. Parris M. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant. John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Linda M. Trentacoste and Dave H. Chen of counsel; Miy Mahran on the brief), for petitioner-respondent. Carton & Rosoff, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Robin D. Carton of counsel), attorney for the child.
George E. Reed, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant.
John M. Nonna, County Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Linda M. Trentacoste and Dave H. Chen of counsel; Miy Mahran on the brief), for petitioner-respondent.
Carton & Rosoff, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Robin D. Carton of counsel), attorney for the child.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Michelle I. Schauer, J.), entered January 24, 2019. The order, insofar as appealed from, after a hearing, continued the child's placement with the petitioner until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further orders of the court.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The mother appeals from so much of the permanency hearing order entered on January 24, 2019, as continued the child's placement with the petitioner until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further orders of the court. A subsequent permanency hearing order was entered on July 25, 2019.
The mother's appeal from so much of the permanency hearing order as continued the child's placement in the custody of the petitioner until the completion of the next permanency hearing or pending further orders of the court, is dismissed as academic, as that portion of the order has expired (see Matter of Peter T. [Shay S.P.], 173 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 100 N.Y.S.3d 914 ; Matter of Peter T. [Shay S.P.], 173 A.D.3d 1043, 1045, 105 N.Y.S.3d 538 ; Matter of Victoria B. [Jonathan M.], 164 A.D.3d 578, 580, 82 N.Y.S.3d 504 ).
Contrary to the mother's contention, this case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 ).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.