Opinion
526078
06-06-2019
In the Matter of DENISE ZZ., Petitioner, v. JOCELYN A., Appellant.
Alexandra G. Verrigni, Rexford, for appellant. Elena Tastensen, Saratoga Springs, attorney for the child.
Alexandra G. Verrigni, Rexford, for appellant.
Elena Tastensen, Saratoga Springs, attorney for the child.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Egan Jr., J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Saratoga County (Pelagalli, J.), entered November 13, 2017, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for custody of the subject child.
Respondent (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of the subject child (born in 2000) whose father died in 2014, and petitioner (hereinafter the grandmother) is the child's paternal grandmother. In 2016, the grandmother commenced this proceeding by filing a petition seeking immediate and permanent custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 72 ). Family Court issued a temporary order of custody awarding the parties joint legal custody with primary physical custody with the grandmother, which was continued in a subsequent order. Following a hearing in 2017, Family Court, upon a finding that the grandmother had established extraordinary circumstances, continued the parties' joint legal custody and awarded primary physical custody to the grandmother. The mother appeals.
Pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, Family Court is vested with jurisdiction to determine custody and visitation issues pertaining to "minors" ( Family Ct Act § 651[a], [b] ), who are defined as "person[s] who [have] not attained the age of [18] years" ( Family Ct Act § 119[c] ). The subject child, born in August 2000, reached the age of 18 in August 2018, during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, the mother's challenges to Family Court's November 2017 custody order have been rendered moot (see Matter of Cokely v. Crocker, 157 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 66 N.Y.S.3d 142 [2018] ; Matter of Yerkes v. Hardy, 145 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 41 N.Y.S.3d 438 [2016] ; Matter of Troy SS. v. Judy UU., 140 A.D.3d 1348, 1349–1350, 34 N.Y.S.3d 506 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 902, 2016 WL 4743055 [2016] ), and she has not demonstrated that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable under the circumstances (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 811, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047 [2003], cert denied 540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430 [2003] ; Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).
Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.