| Matter of Dakota SS. (Jessica SS.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09561 [68 AD3d 1462] |
| December 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Dakota SS., a Neglected Child. Broome CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Jessica SS., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In theMatter of Jessica SS., Appellant, v Patricia SS. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No.2.) |
—[*1] Kuredin V. Eytina, Broome County Department of Social Services, for Broome CountyDepartment of Social Services, respondent. Bridget A. O'Connor, Law Guardian, Binghamton.
Rose, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Connerton, J.),entered May 16, 2008, which, in proceeding No. 1 pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, deniedrespondent's motion to dismiss a violation petition and a petition for extension of supervision[*2]filed by petitioner, and (2) from an order of said court,entered May 13, 2008, which dismissed petitioner's application, in proceeding No. 2 pursuant toFamily Ct Act article 6, for an order of visitation.
Jessica SS. (hereinafter the mother) was adjudged to have neglected her daughter in June2007 and placed under the supervision of the Broome County Department of Social Services(hereinafter DSS). In February 2008, DSS filed two petitions seeking an extension of the periodof supervision and an adjudication that the mother willfully violated the prior order. The mothermoved for dismissal of those petitions as procedurally defective. Family Court denied themotion. When the mother commenced proceeding No. 2 to obtain visitation with the child,Family Court dismissed her pro se petition without prejudice because it was not signed bycounsel. The mother now appeals from both orders.
The mother's appeal from the order in proceeding No. 1 is moot because Family Courtsubsequently dismissed the two petitions filed by DSS against her by an order entered inNovember 2008 (see Matter of Sandulescu v Caico, 64 AD3d 905, 906 [2009];Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]; Matter of Coakley vSanders, 247 AD2d 648 [1998]).
Turning to the mother's appeal from the order entered in proceeding No. 2, we agree thatdismissal of the petition without first bringing the missing signature to the attention of themother or her attorney so it could be corrected was an improvident exercise of Family Court'sdiscretion (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a [a]; Matter of Green v Tierney, 59 AD3d900, 901 [2009]; Cardo v Board of Mgrs., Jefferson Vil. Condo 3, 29 AD3d 930, 931[2006]).
Cardona, P.J., Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal from theorder entered May 16, 2008 is dismissed, as moot, without costs. Ordered that the order enteredMay 13, 2008 is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Family Court ofBroome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's decision.