Opinion
524779
04-05-2018
In the MATTER OF DANA R., Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent. Broome County Attorney, Respondent; v. Dana R., Appellant.
Christine Nicolella, Delanson, for appellant. Robert Behnke, County Attorney, Binghamton (Cheryl D. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Christine Nicolella, Delanson, for appellant.
Robert Behnke, County Attorney, Binghamton (Cheryl D. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Devine, Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aarons, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Miller II, J.), entered February 1, 2017, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.
Petitioner commenced this juvenile delinquency proceeding alleging that respondent (born in 2002) had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree (see Penal Law § 130.50[3] ). The petition was subsequently amended and alleged that respondent had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree (see Penal Law § 130.65[3] ). Respondent admitted to the allegations in the amended petition and, following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, Family Court adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Broome County Department of Social Services. Respondent appeals.
Respondent's only contention on appeal is that his placement with the Broome County Department of Social Services was not supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record. Given that respondent's placement expired in January 2018, however, this issue has been rendered moot (see Matter of Kareem Q., 151 A.D.3d 1321, 1322, 54 N.Y.S.3d 323 [2017] ; Matter of Alliyah GG., 149 A.D.3d 1171, 1172–1173, 51 N.Y.S.3d 248 [2017] ; Matter of Raymond WW., 291 A.D.2d 682, 683, 737 N.Y.S.2d 562 [2002] ). Nor do we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies (see Matter of Kareem Q., 151 A.D.3d at 1322, 54 N.Y.S.3d 323; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Garry, P.J., Devine, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.