| Matter of Randi NN. (Randi MM.\MJoseph MM.) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00449 [80 AD3d 1086] |
| January 27, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Randi NN. and Another, Children Alleged to beNeglected. Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Randi MM.,Respondent, and Joseph MM., Appellant. |
—[*1] Ursula E. Hall, Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Schenectady, forSchenectady County Department of Social Services, respondent. Justin Brusgul, Voorheesville, for Randi MM., respondent. Karen R. Crandall, Schenectady, attorney for the children.
Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Taub,J.H.O.), entered March 25, 2009, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuantto Family Ct Act article 10-A, to extend the placement of respondents' children.
The underlying facts are more fully set forth in our prior decision relating to one of thesubject children (Matter of Randi NN.[Joseph MM.—Kimberly MM.], 68 AD3d 1458 [2009]). Respondent JosephMM. (hereinafter the father) and respondent Randi MM. are the parents of two children, whowere born in 2005 and 2007, and placed in foster care as infants. The father [*2]appeals from a March 2009 permanency hearing order extendingthe children's placement.[FN*]Inasmuch as the father has now surrendered his parental rights and has not challenged thevoluntariness of that surrender, this appeal is moot (see Matter of Simeon F., 58 AD3d1081, 1081-1082 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 709 [2009]; Matter of Vivian OO., 34 AD3d1084, 1085 [2006]; Matter ofNatasha F., 15 AD3d 788, 789 [2005]; see also Matter of Andrew L. [Cassi M.], 68 AD3d 1477, 1478[2009]; Matter of Norbert YY., 28AD3d 815 [2006]; Matter of Raychael L.W., 298 AD2d 829 [2002], lvdenied 99 NY2d 504 [2002]). Moreover, there is no indication that the exception to themootness doctrine applies under the circumstances presented here (see Matter of VivianOO., 34 AD3d at 1085; Matter of Norbert YY., 28 AD3d at 815; cf. Matter of Melinda D., 31 AD3d24, 27-28 [2006]).
Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, asmoot, without costs.
Footnote *: The father's notice of appeal ismisdated. Nevertheless, we treat it as valid in the interest of justice (see CPLR 5520 [c]).