| Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. (Tee Tee Ann W.) |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09664 [68 AD3d 1119] |
| December 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. Administration for Children'sServices et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter ofKendell Anthony B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee AnnW., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Kendra Kimberlyn B. Administration forChildren's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In theMatter of Kendasha Tashauna W.-B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents;Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Shundasha Cheryl B.Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 5.) |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and SusanB. Eisner of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel),attorney for the children.
In five related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the motherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, Ct. Atty. Ref.), datedDecember 22, 2008, which denied her motion to reinstate her visitation with the subject children.Separate motions by the petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Servicesand the attorney for the children, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order dated December22, 2008, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic. By decision and order onmotion of this Court dated September 10, 2009 [2009 NY Slip Op 82708(U)], those branches ofthe motions which were to dismiss the appeal were held in abeyance and were referred [*2]to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination uponthe argument or submission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, the papers filed in opposition thereto, andupon the submission of the appeal, it is,
Ordered that those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal are granted,and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's appeal from the order denying her motion to reinstate visitation with thesubject children has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of the Family Courtreinstating her visitation with the subject children and, therefore, must be dismissed (seePollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 637-638 [2008]; Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d600 [2007]; People ex rel. A.E.F. v K.T.L., 40 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]).
The mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion inapproving a permanency goal of placement for adoption for the subject children is not properlybefore this Court because that issue was not determined in the order appealed from. Dillon, J.P.,Santucci, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.