Opinion
2012-09-28
In the Matter of SYSAMOUTH D., Respondent–Appellant. Oneida County Attorney, Petitioner–Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered October 27, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, inter alia, placed respondent with the Office of Children and Family Services through April 26, 2012. William L. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica, for Respondent–Appellant. Gregory J. Amoroso, County Attorney, Utica (Raymond F. Bara of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (James R. Griffith, J.), entered October 27, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order, inter alia, placed respondent with the Office of Children and Family Services through April 26, 2012.
William L. Koslosky, Attorney for the Child, Utica, for Respondent–Appellant. Gregory J. Amoroso, County Attorney, Utica (Raymond F. Bara of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent appeals from an order of disposition that, inter alia, placed him in the custody of the Office of Children and Family Services through April 26, 2012. According to respondent, Family Court deprived him of his equal protection and due process rights as well as his rights pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 352.2 and 353.3 in determining placement, and the court assumed a prosecutorial role with respect thereto. We dismiss as moot respondent's appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement inasmuch as the period of placement has expired ( see Matter of Haley M.T., 96 A.D.3d 1549, 1549, 947 N.Y.S.2d 257;Matter of Julia R., 52 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 860 N.Y.S.2d 362,lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 709, 868 N.Y.S.2d 601, 897 N.E.2d 1085). Respondent's contentions with respect to placement do not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Kale F., 269 A.D.2d 832, 703 N.Y.S.2d 783;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). Respondent's contention that his admission was insufficient because the court did not follow certain requirements set forth in Family Court Act § 321.3 is not moot “because there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency” (Matter of Stanley F., 76 A.D.3d 1069, 1069, 908 N.Y.S.2d 127). We conclude, however, that it lacks merit ( see Matter of William VV., 42 A.D.3d 710, 711–712, 839 N.Y.S.2d 614).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the order insofar as it concerned placement is unanimously dismissed and the order is otherwise affirmed without costs.