It is uncontroverted that on July 2, 1999, when Family Court issued a temporary order extending respondent's placement, his original placement had expired on June 16, 1999. Since the temporary order of extension was issued after the original placement had expired, Family Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the placement (see, Family Ct. Act § 355.3; Matter of Wayne S., 193 A.D.2d 371, 373). Petitioner's claim that it was not required to credit respondent's placement with 16 days resulting from detention on an unrelated matter that was eventually dismissed (see, Executive Law § 510-b[b]) lacks merit. Although petitioner asserts that it lacked knowledge of the dismissal, the record reflects that it was aware of respondent's open case and was in fact tracking the matter while respondent was in its custody. Petitioner offers no explanation justifying its failure to ascertain the disposition of that case and credit respondent's placement accordingly.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.