| Matter of Anthony TT. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02698 [61 AD3d 1137] |
| April 9, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Anthony TT. and Another, Alleged to beNeglected Children. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Respondent; PhilipTT., Appellant. |
—[*1] David D. Willer, St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, Canton, forrespondent. Lucy P. Bernier, Law Guardian, Oneonta.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Potter, J.),entered June 3, 2008, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to FamilyCt Act article 10, for a temporary order of supervision.
In April 2008, petitioner commenced this neglect proceeding against respondent, the fatherof two sons (born in 1995 and 1997). At a hearing held pursuant to Family Ct Act § 1027,petitioner requested, among other things, a temporary order of supervision and that custody ofthe children be transferred to their mother. Respondent requested that a hearing be held pursuantto Family Ct Act § 1028. Family Court granted petitioner's requests, leading to thisappeal.[FN*][*2]
Respondent and the Law Guardian argue that reversal iswarranted here inasmuch as Family Court failed to comply with the requirements of Family CtAct § 1027, which requires a "fact-intensive inquiry" to determine whether removal of thechild from a parent is necessary to avoid imminent risk to the child's life or health (Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d357, 377 [2004]; see Family Ct Act § 1027 [b] [i]), as well as the issuance ofan order detailing the findings supporting the court's conclusion that removal is necessary(see Family Ct Act § 1027 [b] [ii]). We note that there is no dispute that a FamilyCt Act § 1028 hearing has been conducted—as respondent requested—atwhich witnesses testified on behalf of the parties. In addition, the court conducted aLincoln hearing. Thereafter, Family Court issued an order dated August 15, 2008, whichadequately set forth its rationale and the facts upon which it relied in determining that removalwas in the children's best interests, and continued its order removing the children, as well as theorders of protection and supervision. Under these circumstances, we conclude that this appeal isnow moot and that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Cheyenne A., 56 AD3d1008, 1008-1009 [2008]; Matter ofChelsea BB., 34 AD3d 1085, 1088 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 806 [2007];Matter of Senator NN., 305 AD2d 819, 820 [2003]). We have considered respondent'sremaining argument and find that it is meritless.
Peters, Lahtinen, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, asmoot, without costs.
Footnote *: The order from whichrespondent appeals was amended one week later to include several minor clarifications that arenot relevant here. Under these circumstances, this Court may review the amended order withoutanother notice of appeal having been filed (see Matter of Ashlie B., 37 AD3d 997, 997 n [2007]).