Opinion
516551
06-11-2015
In the Matter of KYLEE Y. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lynn AA., Respondent. Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donald Y., Respondent. Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.).
Allan B. Cruikshank, Plattsburgh, for appellant. Allison W. Mussen, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social Services, respondent. Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Allan B. Cruikshank, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
Allison W. Mussen, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social Services, respondent.Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.
Opinion
ROSE, J.Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered March 11, 2013, which granted petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10, to adjudicate respondents' children to be neglected, and modified an award of supervised visitation to Timothy Z.
Timothy Z. (hereinafter the father) is the father of twins, Brandy Y. and Cedar Y. (born in 2008). Respondent Lynn AA. is the mother of the twins and she also has two other children, who are not the subject of this appeal, with respondent Donald Y. Petitioner commenced these proceedings against Lynn AA. and Donald Y. alleging that they had neglected all four of the children, and the father appeared as a nonrespondent parent (see Family Ct. Act § 1035 [d] ). Family Court determined that the children were neglected and entered dispositional orders which, as relevant here, provided the father with visitation supervised by petitioner.The father appeals, arguing that Family Court did not have a sound and substantial basis to name petitioner as the supervisor of visitation. Since the March 2013 entry of the dispositional orders on appeal, however, Family Court (Ryan, J.) issued permanency orders terminating the father's right to visitation with his children. Those orders were entered in November 2014, and it is our understanding that they have not been appealed. Accordingly, these subsequent orders render the appeals moot, inasmuch as the rights of the father will not be “ ‘directly affected by the determination of the appeal[s]’ ” (Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668, 671, 3 N.Y.S.3d 288, 26 N.E.3d 1143 [2015], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ; see Matter of Lauren L. [Cassi M.], 79 A.D.3d 1172, 1172, 911 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2010] ; Matter of Ariel FF., 63 A.D.3d 1202, 1203, 879 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2009] ).
We take judicial notice of those orders (see
ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.
PETERS, P.J., GARRY and DEVINE, JJ., concur.
Matter of Hannah U. [Patti U.], 110 A.D.3d 1258, 1260 n. 5, 974 N.Y.S.2d 149 [2013] ).