Opinion
04-25-2024
In the MATTER OF J. V. and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Shelly R., Respondent-Respondent, v. Erikson P., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children’s Services, Petitioner-Respondent.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for appellant. The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (David Shalleck-Klein of counsel), and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Amanda C. Weingarten of counsel), for Shelly R., respondent. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent. Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Attorney for the child Kadelyn P.
John R. Eyerman, New York, for appellant.
The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (David Shalleck-Klein of counsel), and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Amanda C. Weingarten of counsel), for Shelly R., respondent.
Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for Administration for Children’s Services, respondent.
Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Attorney for the child Kadelyn P.
Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Rosado, Michael, JJ.
Appeal from an amended order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2021, which, among other things, ordered the release of the subject child to respondent mother for six months and directed the appellant father to complete an anger management program, a parenting class, and permitted supervised visitation between the father and the subject child, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
Application by the father’s assigned counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 [1967]; People v. Saunders, 52 AD.2d 833, 384 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1st Dept. 1976]). We have reviewed the record and agree with assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Because the terms of the dispositional order expired on April 14, 2022, and no extensions were sought or directed, the appeal has been rendered academic (Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 A.D.3d 484, 935 N.Y.S.2d 886 [1st Dept. 2012]). Moreover, as the father consented to the order, he is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 and no appeal lies from the order (Matter of Adrianna M.F. [Shanikqa C.F.], 212 A.D.3d 461, 179 N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept. 2023]; CPLR 5511).