| Matter of Carmen L. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02155 [49 AD3d 649] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Carmen L. Suffolk County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Vanessa M.Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No.2.) In the Matter of Nathaniel M. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Victoria M. Suffolk County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Eric M., Appellant. (Proceeding No.4.) |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Gary Rosenthal of counsel), forrespondent. Danielle I. Schwager, P.C., Central Islip, N.Y., Law Guardian.
In four related child protective proceedings pursuant toFamily Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, SuffolkCounty (Freundlich, J.), entered December 8, 2006, which, upon a fact-finding order of the samecourt dated December 8, 2006, entered upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing,extended supervision of the father by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services untilDecember 8, 2007.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The order extending supervision of the father by the Suffolk County Department of SocialServices expired by its own terms on December 8, 2007. Thus, the appeal from that order mustbe dismissed as academic (see Matter of Eddie J., 303 AD2d 587, 588 [2003]; Matterof Chavi S., 269 AD2d 454 [2000]). Under other circumstances, this would not precludereview of the fact-finding order, which found that the father violated a prior order of supervision(see Matter of Eddie J., 303 AD2d at 588), however, here the fact-finding order wasentered on the father's default (seeMatter of Cynthia Hope A., 36 AD3d 803, 804 [2007]; Matter of Vanessa M.,263 AD2d 542, 543 [1999]; Matter of Ashlee X., 244 AD2d 707, 709 [1997]). Thus,the finding that he violated a previous order of supervision cannot be reviewed because no appeallies from an order that is entered on the default of the appealing party (see CPLR 5511;Pinchas v Pinchas, 19 AD3d673, 674 [2005]; Matter of Chavi S., 269 AD2d 454 [2000]). Spolzino, J.P.,Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.