| Matter of Edelyn S. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03737 [62 AD3d 713] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Edelyn S. Dutchess County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Jessica S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Edel S.Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jessica S., Appellant. (ProceedingNo. 2.) In the Matter of Lydia S. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent;Jessica S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Ronald Wozniak, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Richard A. Ott of counsel), forrespondent. Dennis R. Vetrano, Jr., Beacon, N.Y., attorney for the children.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, themother appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, DutchessCounty (Forman, J.), dated April 27, 2007, which, upon her admission, determined that she hadneglected the subject [*2]children, and upon her consent, placedthe subject children in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12months, and directed her to comply with an order of protection of the same court, also datedApril 27, 2007, and (2) the order of protection dated April 27, 2007, which directed her toobserve certain conditions until February 28, 2008. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief inaccordance with Anders v California (386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves to berelieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.
Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that counsel's application to withdraw as counsel is dismissed as academic.
The appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition must be dismissed, as the findingof neglect was entered upon the appellant's admission (see CPLR 5511; Matter of Caleb P., 31 AD3d 559[2006]; Matter of Bianca C., 309 AD2d 932 [2003]) and the appellant is not aggrievedby the dispositional portion of the order, since she waived her right to a dispositional hearing andconsented to the disposition (see Matterof Shaheen P.J., 29 AD3d 996, 997 [2006]; Matter of Shamasia M., 4 AD3d 359, 361 [2004]). In any event,the appeal from that portion of the order which placed the subject children in the care of theCommissioner of Social Services has been rendered academic, as the period of placement hasexpired by its own terms (see Matter ofChristina B., 8 AD3d 373, 373-374 [2004]; Matter of Fatima Mc., 292 AD2d532, 533 [2002]).
The order of protection expired by its own terms on February 28, 2008 and the determinationof the appeal from this order would, under the facts of this case, have no direct effect upon theparties. Accordingly, the appeal from the order of protection must be dismissed as academic (see Matter of Beverly R., 38 AD3d668, 669 [2007]; Matter of Q.-L.H., 27 AD3d 738, 739 [2006]).
In light of the foregoing, we do not review the contentions raised in the appellant'ssupplemental pro se brief. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.