Matter of Diallo v Diallo

2009 NY Slip Op 08868 [68 AD3d 411]

December 1, 2009

Appellate Division, First Department

As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Hawa Diallo, Respondent, v MohammedDiallo, Appellant.

—[*1]Carol Lipton, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Sanctuary for Families, Inc., New York (Lisa S. Vara-Gulmez of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or aboutMarch 14, 2008, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted petitioner an order of protection forone year, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Because the order of protection has expired, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Jamal A. v Valentina V.,46 AD3d 389 [2007]; Wibrowski v Wibrowski, 256 AD2d 172 [1998]). Althoughrespondent maintains that the matter should be reviewed inasmuch as the issuance of the orderwould have enduring and serious consequences, here, there is an absence of any permanent andsignificant stigma that might adversely affect respondent in future proceedings (see Matter ofHearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-714 [1980]; compare Matter of S.Children, 231 AD2d 573 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 809 [1997], cert denied521 US 1125 [1997]).

Were we to reach the merits, we would find that in light of the court's credibility findings,the determination to issue the order of protection was not against the weight of the evidence(see Matter of F.B. v W.B., 248 AD2d 119 [1998]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny,Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.