McMANUS v. McMANUS

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the motion of the Law Guardian is denied.

Contrary to the contention of the Law Guardian representing the infant on appeal, the issue raised on appeal is not rendered academic simply because the Law Guardian has now adopted a position which differs from that propounded by the Law Guardian who represented the infant before the Supreme Court (see, People ex rel. Doe v. Beaudoin, 102 A.D.2d 359, 363).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in determining that the transcript of an in camera interview should be unsealed and released to a detective working for an out-of-state law enforcement agency (see, CPLR 4019[b]; Matter of Kathleen O., 232 A.D.2d 784, 786; Matter of Ladd v. Bellavia, 151 A.D.2d 1015, 1016).