| Matter of Max F. (Emma F.G.) |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05741 [97 AD3d 816] |
| July 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
In the Matter of Max F., Jr. NassauCounty Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F.-G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.)In the Matter of Andrea L.H. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; EmmaF., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Elijah-Khalil H. Nassau County Departmentof Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of KaiAriyian H. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant.(Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Kennard C.R., Jr. Nassau County Department of SocialServices, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.)—[*1]
John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Wagg of counsel), forrespondent. Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the child Max F. (no brief filed). [*2]Tomasina Mastroianni, Westbury, N.Y., attorney for thechildren Andrea L.H., Elijah-Khalil H., Kai Ariyian H., and Kennard C.R., Jr. (no brieffiled).
In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, EmmaF.-G., also known as Emma F., appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of theFamily Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated July 20, 2010, which, after fact-finding anddispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she had neglected the child Max F., Jr., (2) an orderof fact-finding and disposition of the same court, also dated July 20, 2010, which, after thefact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she had neglected the childrenAndrea L.H., Elijah-Khalil H., Kai Ariyian H., and Kennard C.R., Jr., and (3) two orders ofprotection of the same court, also dated July 20, 2010.
Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs ordisbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeals from the orders of protection are dismissed as academic, withoutcosts or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Family Court's determination that she neglectedthe subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act§ 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter ofAlbert Francis B., 66 AD3d 769 [2009]).
The orders of protection expired by their own terms on July 19, 2011, and the determinationof the appeals from those orders would, under the facts of this case, have no direct effect uponthe parties (see Matter of Brittany C.[Linda C.], 67 AD3d 788 [2009]; Matter of Edelyn S., 62 AD3d 713, 713-714 [2009]). Accordingly,the appeals from the orders of protection must be dismissed as academic.
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Skelos, Florio andHall, JJ., concur.