Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

In re Skyler R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 2, 2011

85 A.D.3d 1238; 923 N.Y.S.2d 921

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Tyrell FF. (Jaquasisa GG.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
F., GAIGE, NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL, v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Gaige F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Gaige F. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Brandon WW. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Brandon WW. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Mary YY. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Mary YY. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), entered July 23, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, temporarily placed respondent’s child in the custody of petitioner.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding against respondent (hereinafter the mother) the day after the subject child was born, seeking an adjudication of neglect and the child’s removal from the mother and the father, who is the respondent in a related neglect proceeding. Following a preliminary hearing pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1027, Family Court ordered temporary removal of the child and placement with petitioner. Thereafter, the mother and father each stipulated to a finding of neglect, and the mother consented to an order of adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which continues the child’s placement with petitioner until January 2012.* Based upon these subsequent events, this appeal by the mother from the temporary removal order is moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Kiearah P., 46 AD3d 958, 959 [2007] ; see also Matter of Cheyenne A., 56 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2008] ). Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

An order of disposition was entered against the father placing the child in petitioner’s custody.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.