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.

In re Alexander K.

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department


October 14, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER K. AND OTHERS, NEGLECTED CHILDREN.
CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENT;
v.
JENNIFER N., APPELLANT.

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

Calendar Date: September 17, 2010

Before: Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ.

Appeals from three orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered May 16, 2008, which, among other things, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, extended the placement of respondent's children with a suitable relative.

By orders entered May 16, 2008, Family Court continued the placement of respondent's three children, all of whom the court previously had adjudicated to be neglected, with a suitable relative pending a further hearing. Thereafter, in September 2008, respondent consented to three orders awarding legal and physical custody of the children to their maternal grandmother and maternal step-grandfather in separate proceedings commenced pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6. In conjunction therewith, Family Court, by orders entered September 16, 2008, canceled the then-pending permanency hearing and terminated all prior orders issued in the context of the neglect proceeding. These appeals ensued.

Respondent's counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment upon the ground that there are no non-frivolous issues to be pursued on appeal (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]). The May 2008 placement orders -- the only orders from which respondent has appealed -- have been rendered moot by the September 2008 consent orders awarding custody of respondent's children to their maternal grandparents (see Matter of Chelsea M. [Ernest M.], 68 AD3d 1489, 1489-1490 [2009]). As the underlying appeals are moot, we need not address counsel's application to be relieved of her assignment (see id.; Matter of Lind v Sepulveda, 66 AD3d 1087, 1087-1088 [2009]; Matter of Senator NN., 21 AD3d 1187, 1188 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose and Stein, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

20101014

© 1992-2010 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.