| Matter of Claudia G. (Ermelio G.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02147 [71 AD3d 894] |
| March 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Claudia G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected,Appellant. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Ermelio G., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Karla G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Nassau CountyDepartment of Social Services, Respondent; Ermelio G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In theMatter of Walter G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Nassau County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Ermelio G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) |
—[*1] Sandra Stines, Jericho, N.Y., attorney for the appellant child Claudia G. John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Karen Hutson of counsel), for respondent. Richard D. Lorge, Westbury, N.Y., attorney for the children Karla G. and WalterG.
In three related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, thefather appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of fact-finding anddisposition (one paper) of the Family County, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated December23, 2008, as directed him to comply with the terms and conditions of an order of protection ofthe same court dated December 18, 2008, in favor of the minor children Karla G. and Walter G.and (2) so much of the order of protection dated December 18, 2008, as directed him to stayaway from and refrain from communicating with Karla G. and Walter G. by mail, telephone,email, voice-mail or other means, and the child Claudia G. appeals, as limited by her brief, fromstated portions of (1) the order of fact-finding and disposition dated December 23, 2008, and (2)the order of protection.
Ordered that the appeals are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
The father challenges the order of protection only insofar as it directed him to stay awayfrom and refrain from communicating with the children Karla G. and Walter G. The childClaudia G. [*2]challenges the order of protection insofar as itdirected the father to stay away from and refrain from communicating with her. The order ofprotection expired on December 17, 2009, and has not been renewed. As such, the appeals havebeen rendered academic as any determination on the appeals would not, under the facts of thiscase, have a direct effect upon the parties (see Matter of Brittany C. [Linda C.], 67 AD3d 788 [2009], lvdenied 14 NY3d 702 [2010]; Matter of Edelyn S., 62 AD3d 713 [2009]; Matter of Isaiah S., 63 AD3d 948[2009]; Matter of Ajay P., 60 AD3d681 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.