Amollyah B.v.Tiffany R.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.May 4, 2018
73 N.Y.S.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)
73 N.Y.S.3d 922161 A.D.3d 1558

512 CAF 17–00252

05-04-2018

In the MATTER OF AMOLLYAH B., Brinnley B., Brooklyn B., and Vanessah B. Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Petitioner–Respondent; v. Tiffany R., Respondent–Appellant.

THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP, PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT. DAVID J. PAULSEN, COUNTY ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (ARTHUR C. STEVER, IV, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT. CARRIE M. MASON, ADAMS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN. MELISSA L. KOFFS, CHAUMONT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.


THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP, PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–APPELLANT.

DAVID J. PAULSEN, COUNTY ATTORNEY, WATERTOWN (ARTHUR C. STEVER, IV, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER–RESPONDENT.

CARRIE M. MASON, ADAMS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN.

MELISSA L. KOFFS, CHAUMONT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND WINSLOW, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, respondent mother appeals from an order in which Family Court modified the permanency goals with respect to the mother's four children from reunification to adoption or placement with a relative.

We conclude that the mother's appeal must be dismissed. Initially, we note that the mother did not appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition in which the court made a finding of neglect. Consequently, because the mother failed to appeal from that order, her contentions with respect to the finding of neglect are not properly before us in this appeal from a permanency order (see generally Matter ofArkadian S. [Crystal S.], 130 A.D.3d 1457, 1458, 13 N.Y.S.3d 746 [4th Dept. 2015], lv dismissed 26 N.Y.3d 995, 19 N.Y.S.3d 216, 41 N.E.3d 73 [2015] ; Matter of Breeyanna S., 52 A.D.3d 342, 342–343, 861 N.Y.S.2d 615 [1st Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 711, 872 N.Y.S.2d 73, 900 N.E.2d 556 [2008] ; Matter of James H., 281 A.D.2d 920, 920–921, 721 N.Y.S.2d 849 [4th Dept. 2001], appeal dismissed 96 N.Y.2d 896, 730 N.Y.S.2d 792, 756 N.E.2d 80 [2001], cert denied 534 U.S. 1090, 122 S.Ct. 832, 151 L.Ed.2d 713 [2002] ). Furthermore, the mother's challenge to the permanency order must be dismissed as moot inasmuch as superseding permanency orders have since been entered (see Matter of Anthony L. [Lisa P.], 144 A.D.3d 1690, 1691 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 914, 2017 WL 581722 [2017] ; Matter of Alexander M. [Michael M.], 83 A.D.3d 1400, 1401, 919 N.Y.S.2d 450 [4th Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 2535039 [2011] ; Breeyanna S., 52 A.D.3d at 342, 861 N.Y.S.2d 615 ).