IN RE PATRICIA

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Nos. 2009-01083, (Docket Nos. N-22763-06, N-27992-05, N-27993-05, N-27994-05, N-27996-05).

Attorney(S)

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the children.

Judges

Mark C. Dillon
L. Priscilla Hall

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

In the Matter of TISHAUNA PATRICIA N. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; TEE TEE ANN W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of KENDELL ANTHONY B. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; TEE TEE ANN W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of KENDRA KIMBERLYN B. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; TEE TEE ANN W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of KENDASHA TASHAUNA W.-B. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; TEE TEE ANN W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of SHUNDASHA CHERYL B. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES et al., Respondents; TEE TEE ANN W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.).

Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is,

Ordered that those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal are granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother's appeal from the order denying her motion to reinstate visitation with the subject children has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of the Family Court reinstating her visitation with the subject children and, therefore, must be dismissed ( see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 637-638; Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d 600; People ex rel. A.E.F. v K.T.L., 40 AD3d 894, 895).

The mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in approving a permanency goal of placement for adoption for the subject children is not properly before this Court because that issue was not determined in the order appealed from.

Comments