Opinion
No. 535 CAF 21-01146
06-03-2022
IN THE MATTER OF ALVIN H., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ONONDAGA COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
BELLETIER LAW OFFICE, SYRACUSE (ANTHONY BELLETIER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (SARA E. LOWENGARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
BELLETIER LAW OFFICE, SYRACUSE (ANTHONY BELLETIER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
ROBERT A. DURR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (SARA E. LOWENGARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Julie A. Cecile, J.), entered July 23, 2021 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, inter alia, adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order that adjudicated him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him in the custody of the Onondaga County Department of Children and Family Services for a period of one year, respondent contends only that Family Court erred by conducting an inadequate dispositional hearing. We dismiss the appeal as moot inasmuch as the period of placement has expired (see Matter of Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d 1314, 1314 [4th Dept 2012]; Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 832-833 [4th Dept 2000]) and, to the extent that the order on appeal has been superceded by a subsequent order extending respondent's placement, there is no appeal therefrom now before us (see Matter of Joseph YY., 306 A.D.2d 584, 585 [3d Dept 2003]; Matter of Joseph M., 306 A.D.2d 612, 612 [3d Dept 2003]; Matter of Byron A., 112 A.D.2d 30, 30 [4th Dept 1985]). We conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Sysamouth D., 98 A.D.3d at 1314; Kale F., 269 A.D.2d at 832-833; cf. Matter of Dante P., 81 A.D.3d 1267, 1268 [4th Dept 2011]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).