| Matter of Toni Ann O. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08741 [56 AD3d 563] |
| November 12, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Toni Ann O., Alleged to be a Person in Need ofSupervision, Appellant. |
—[*1] Ronald L. Wozniak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Victor A. Civitillo of counsel),for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order offact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Sammarco, J.), dated May15, 2007, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, upon the admission of Toni AnnO. to truancy, adjudged her to be a person in need of supervision and directed that she be placedin the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as directedthat the appellant be placed in the custody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Servicesfor a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and itfurther,
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, withoutcosts or disbursements.
The portion of the order of fact-finding and disposition which placed the appellant in thecustody of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months hasexpired by its own terms. In addition, the appellant failed to take an appeal from a subsequentorder extending the placement. Therefore, the appeal from so much of the order of fact-findingand disposition as placed the appellant in the custody of the Dutchess County Department ofSocial Services for a period of 12 months must be dismissed (see Matter of Andrew Y., 44 AD3d 1063 [2007]; Matter of Qwasan M., 25 AD3d613 [2006]; [*2]Matter of Alan B., 267 AD2d 306[1999]).
The appellant's contention that the Family Court failed to conduct a proper hearing isunpreserved for appellate review (seeMatter of Terrance B., 40 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2007]) and, in any event, is without merit(see Matter of Timothy C., 31 AD3d1222, 1223 [2006]). The appellant gave sworn testimony at the fact-finding hearing on April3, 2007, at which she admitted having had more than three illegal absences from school. Inaddition, at the dispositional hearing on May 15, 2007, the Family Court based its determinationon the report of the Dutchess County Probation Department dated May 15, 2007 (hereinafter theProbation Report), and the testimony of the attorney for the appellant, the appellant, and herparents. Moreover, the Probation Report relied upon by the court was part of the record andprovided an ample basis for the court's determination (see generally Family Ct Act§ 750 [2]; Matter of TimothyC., 31 AD3d 1222, 1223 [2006]). Based on this record, the petitioner met its burden ofproving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was a person in need of supervision(see Matter of Iris R., 33 NY2d 987, 988 [1974]; Matter of East Islip High School v Ian M., 33 AD3d 921 [2006]; Matter of Joel P., 16 AD3d 511,512 [2005]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Carni andDickerson, JJ., concur.