Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paitin W. v. Brian Y.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT


April 2, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF PAITIN W. AND OTHERS, ALLEGED TO BE NEGLECTED CHILDREN.
COLUMBIA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT;
v.
BRIAN Y., APPELLANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kavanagh, J.

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.

Calendar Date: February 11, 2009

Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Columbia County (Czajka, J.), entered July 30, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, for an order of protection.

In July 2008, petitioner commenced this proceeding for a determination that respondent had neglected his girlfriend's children. In connection with that neglect petition, petitioner sought a temporary order of protection directing that respondent have no contact with his girlfriend's children and, further, that he should have no contact with any children under the age of 21. After a hearing, Family Court issued a temporary order of protection that prohibited respondent from having contact with any child under the age of 21. Respondent now appeals from that temporary order of protection.

The only relief sought by respondent is for modification of the temporary order of protection by deleting the portion of the order that prevented him from having contact with all children under the age of 21. Inasmuch as the temporary order of protection from which respondent appeals expired by its express written terms on December 21, 2008, and there has been no extension of the order, respondent's challenge to the order is moot (see Matter of Marchand v Nazzaro, 55 AD3d 968, 969 [2008]; Matter of Cadejah AA., 25 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 705 [2006]; Matter of Senator NN., 21 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2005]; Matter of Noor v Noor, 15 AD3d 788, 789 [2005]; Matter of Schreiber v Schreiber, 2 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2003]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

20090402

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.