Opinion
Nos. 2009-01083, (Docket Nos. N-22763-06, N-27992-05, N-27993-05, N-27994-05, N-27996-05).
December 22, 2009.
In five related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, Ct. Atty. Ref), dated December 22, 2008, which denied her motion to reinstate her visitation with the subject children. Separate motions by the petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services and the attorney for the children, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order dated December 22, 2008, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 10, 2009 [2009 NY Slip Op 82708(U)], those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal were held in abeyance and were referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the children.
Before: Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is,
Ordered that those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal are granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The mother's appeal from the order denying her motion to reinstate visitation with the subject children has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of the Family Court reinstating her visitation with the subject children and, therefore, must be dismissed ( see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 637-638; Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d 600; People ex rel. A.E.F. v K.T.L., 40 AD3d 894, 895).
The mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in approving a permanency goal of placement for adoption for the subject children is not properly before this Court because that issue was not determined in the order appealed from.