| Matter of Justin CC. (George CC.\MTina CC.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05905 [86 AD3d 725] |
| July 14, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Justin CC. and Others, Abused and NeglectedChildren. Chemung County Department of Social Services, Respondent; George CC., Appellant,and Tina CC., Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.) |
—[*1] David A. Kagle, Chemung County Department of Law, Elmira, for Chemung CountyDepartment of Social Services, respondent. Abbie Goldbas, Utica, for Tina CC., respondent. Michelle E. Stone, Vestal, attorney for the child.
Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), enteredAugust 17, 2009, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, partially deniedthe motion of respondent George CC. to modify a prior order of protection.[*2]
Respondent George CC. (hereinafter the father) andrespondent Tina CC. (hereinafter the mother) are the parents of three sons (born in 1996, 1999and 2001), and the mother also has a daughter from a prior relationship (born in 1992).[FN*]In 2006, based on statements made by the daughter to her guidance counselor and evidenceadduced at the ensuing investigation, petitioner commenced these proceedings, initially allegingthat the children were neglected by respondents and thereafter amending the petitions to allegethat the father had sexually abused the daughter and derivatively abused his sons. Following afact-finding hearing, Family Court sustained these charges and, thereafter, respondents eachstipulated to the terms of a dispositional order and the father consented to the entry of an order ofprotection which, among other things, ordered the father to have no contact with the sons.Respondents appealed from Family Court's order, and we affirmed (Matter of Justin CC. [Tina CC.], 77AD3d 1056 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 702 [2011]).
While that appeal was pending, the father brought an order to show cause in Family Courtseeking to modify certain terms of the order of protection, including the duration of the order aswell as the provision prohibiting contact with the sons. Family Court entered an order modifyingthe duration of the order of protection (see Family Ct Act § 1056) to coincide withthe duration of the order of supervision imposed by the dispositional order, set to expire on April16, 2010, but otherwise denied the father's motion. The father now appeals.
The appeal must be dismissed, as the challenged order of protection has, by its terms, expired(see Matter of Jenna T. v Mark U.,82 AD3d 1512, 1512 n [2011]; Matter of Brandon DD. [Jessica EE.], 74 AD3d 1435, 1437 n 2[2010]). Contrary to the father's arguments, an expired order of protection does not carry with itthe same type of enduring consequences as an order of contempt and, accordingly, we find noexception to the mootness doctrine here (cf. Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862,863-864 [1995]; Matter of Loomis vYu-Jen G., 81 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2011]).
Peters, J.P., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal isdismissed, as moot, without costs.
Footnote *: The mother surrendered herparental rights with respect to her daughter in 2007, following initial charges against respondentsof neglect.