| Matter of Leslie H. v Carol M.D. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00268 [47 AD3d 716] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Leslie H., Respondent, v Carol M.D.,Appellant. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, Carol M. D. appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an amended order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court,Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated July 20, 2006, as, after a fact-finding hearing, adjudicated herto be a person in need of supervision.
Ordered that the amended order of fact-finding and disposition is reversed insofar asappealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.
The appellant's contentions regarding her temporary detention at a nonsecure facility duringthe fact-finding hearing have been rendered academic. The detention orders expired on their ownterms, and any corrective measures which this Court might undertake would have no practicaleffect (see Matter of Desiree C., 7AD3d 522, 523 [2004]; Matter of C. Children, 249 AD2d 540 [1998]; Matter ofKeith C., 226 AD2d 369, 370 [1996]).
Although the dispositional portion of the amended order of fact-finding and disposition hasexpired by its own terms, a review of the appellant's adjudication as a person in need ofsupervision is not academic because of the possibility of collateral legal consequences resultingfrom the adjudication (see Family Ct Act § 783; Matter of Michael H., 239AD2d 618, 619 [1997]; Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 AD2d 651, 653 [1995], affd87 NY2d 1009 [1996]; Matter of Erik P., 42 AD2d 908, 909 [1973]). As the appellantcorrectly argues, the petition was jurisdictionally defective because it failed to comply withFamily Court Act § 735. Pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the provisions pertaining toproceedings relating to persons in need of supervision, a petition must allege that the "petitionerhas complied with the provisions of section seven hundred thirty-five of this article" (Family CtAct § [*2]732 [d]). Section 735 of the Family Court Actrequires counties to designate a lead agency, either the local social services district or theprobation department, to offer "diversion services" to the youth and his or her family (Family CtAct § 735 [a]). Moreover, the lead agency must document its diligent attempts to preventthe filing of a petition and its diligent attempts to provide appropriate services to the youth andhis or her family before it may be determined that there is no substantial likelihood that the youthand his or her family will benefit from further attempts (see Family Ct Act § 735[b], [d]).
Despite the purported compliance with Family Court Act § 735, the statement of theNassau County Probation Department attached to the petition was deficient because it neitherindicated that any attempts had been made to avoid the filing of the petition nor clearlydocumented any diligent attempts to provide appropriate services to the appellant and her familybefore it was determined that there was no substantial likelihood that she and her family wouldbenefit from such further attempts. Since the failure to comply with such substantive statutoryrequirements constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect, the order must be reversed and theproceeding dismissed (see Matter ofRajan M., 35 AD3d 863, 864 [2006]; Matter of James S. v Jessica B., 9 Misc 3d 229 [2005]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant's remaining contentions.Spolzino, J.P., Skelos, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.