Opinion
December 28, 2000.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Nelson, J.), entered September 8, 1999, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ.
Alan J. Burczak, Law Guardian, Plattsburgh, for appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Based upon respondent's admissions that she was absent from and late for school on numerous occasions between December 1998 and April 1999 without any legal excuse, as alleged in an April 1999 petition seeking to adjudicate her a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS), Family Court adjudicated her a PINS and placed her in the custody of the St. Lawrence County Commissioner of Social Services for a period of 12 months. On this appeal from that determination, we reject respondent's contentions that the court failed to advise her of the right to remain silent at the commencement of the fact-finding hearing and that the court "misadvised" her about the right to a fact-finding hearing.
The record of the fact-finding hearing reveals that prior to any admission by respondent, Family Court advised her, in the presence of her parents and the Law Guardian, of the right to remain silent (compare, Matter of Tabitha E., 271 A.D.2d 719; Matter of Melanie UU., 254 A.D.2d 632). The court further advised her, although not statutorily required to do so, that she had a right to a fact-finding hearing and of the various dispositional alternatives that could be imposed against her should she be adjudicated a PINS (see, Matter of Tabitha LL., 87 N.Y.2d 1009, 1010-1011). We find that the admonitions by the court did not in any way "misadvise" respondent about any of her rights and were in full compliance with Family Court Act § 741 (a) (see, Matter of Nicole EE., 233 A.D.2d 744). Therefore, we discern no basis upon which to overturn the PINS adjudication (see generally,Matter of Mark J. [Gibson], 259 A.D.2d 40; Matter of Tabitha LL., 216 A.D.2d 651, affd 87 N.Y.2d 1009; compare, Matter of David B.P., 57 A.D.2d 1077; Matter of Joseph G., 52 A.D.2d 924).
Since respondent's placement has expired and the terms of the dispositional order have been satisfied (compare, Matter of Mark VV., 258 A.D.2d 786), respondent's remaining contentions concerning the dispositional phase of the proceeding and the order itself are moot (see generally, Matter of Randy SS. [Jo Ann SS.], 226 A.D.2d 799; Matter of Tabitha LL., supra).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.