In re Cheyenne BB.

Jun 4, 2015
Versions:129 A.D.3d 1164
10 N.Y.S.3d 715
Henry

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Devine, J. Appeals (1) from an order of the County Court of Otsego County (Burns, J.), entered December 3, 2013, which, among other things, granted plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

The parties own real property that is on or near Goodyear Lake in Otsego County. Plaintiff owns lots 4, 5 and 6 of a subdivision that was created in 1922. Her family has owned the lots since 1952, and they passed to her in 2004. Several rights-of-way allow access to and from the subdivision, and plaintiff has deeded rights to two of them, known as rights-of-way No. 2 and No. 3. Her property is bounded to the north by right-of-way No. 3, while right-of-way No. 2 runs from the eastern boundary of her property. She also claims that she is entitled to use a separate right-of-way running along the eastern edge of her property to a dock on the lake (hereinafter the dock path).

Right-of-way No. 3 is also known as Sunnikrest Road, and the road was moved after the Town of Milford acquired it in

``` Wait, looking at instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The document has: 1. End of a case (starts “chose not to testify...“) 2. Full case: Matter of Cheyenne BB. 3. Start of another case: Bailey v. Dimick. I will convert the full case “Matter of Cheyenne BB.” as the main opinion. ```html

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

``` The next case “Bailey v. Dimick” starts but is not completed in the provided scan. The instructions say “Convert the entire opinion from start to finish. Never stop mid-document.” and “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” Matter of Cheyenne BB. is the only opinion in the provided document that is presented in its entirety. Final check of metadata for Matter of Cheyenne BB.: Case Name: In the Matter of CHEYENNE BB. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. SCHOHARIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent; KIMBERLY CC., Appellant. shortName: Matter of Cheyenne BB. Docket: Not explicitly listed as “No. X“, but the citation is [10 NYS3d 715]. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York (Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.) Date: Order appealed from entered April 30, 2014. Expiration Jan 17, 2015. However, there is no specific date for this decision on the page. I will omit the date attribute if not present. Actually, the citation [10 NYS3d 715] implies a 2015 or late 2014 date, but I‘ll follow strict extraction rules. Citation: [10 NYS3d 715] Wait, looking at the layout, there is a case after it (Bailey v. Dimick). Matter of Cheyenne BB. is complete. Refined output:

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

/p>

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

```html

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

```

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

``` Wait, looking at the first OCR, there‘s another case at the top of page 1164 that is partially shown. “Matter of Collin H.” etc. per the first few lines. But per rule “Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Then “In the Matter of Cheyenne BB.” is the first case with a full caption. It ends at the bottom of page 1165. Then “Marilyn E. Bailey...” starts. Since “In the Matter of Cheyenne BB.” is complete, it is the main opinion to convert. Wait, looking at the top of 1164: it is the end of another opinion. “Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.” ends the previous opinion. Then “In the Matter of Cheyenne BB. ...” is the next case. It ends on 1165 with “Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.” Then another case starts. I will convert “In the Matter of Cheyenne BB.” as it is the first complete opinion with a caption. ```html

Lahtinen, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schoharie County (Wilhelm, J.), entered April 30, 2014, which granted petitioner‘s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, to extend the period of petitioner‘s supervision of respondent.

In 2010, respondent‘s two children (born in 2005 and 2006) were adjudicated neglected and, although the children were permitted to remain in respondent‘s home, respondent was placed under petitioner‘s supervision for 12 months. Thereafter, the periods of supervision were annually extended by Family Court. After a hearing in which petitioner presented proof of uncleanliness and safety issues at respondent‘s home, Family Court again extended supervision. Respondent appeals from such order.

Initially, we note that since the order from which the appeal is taken expired January 17, 2015, this appeal is moot. However, were we to consider respondent‘s argument we would find it meritless. “Family Court is authorized to make successive extensions of supervision upon a hearing and for good cause shown, and we generally do not disturb such an extension unless it lacks a sound basis in the record” (Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, Family Court noted in its bench decision its desire to terminate supervision, but determined that a further extension was necessitated by evidence of, among other things, conditions of acute clutter and filth in the home affecting the children, as well as a lack of minimal consistent efforts by respondent to basic cleanliness. Were this issue properly before us, we would find that a sound basis exists in the record supporting Family Court‘s decision.

Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

``` Wait, is there any metadata missing? Judge: Wilhelm, J. (trial court), Lahtinen, Rose, Devine, Clark (appellate). Metadata rule: midpage-judge. Citation: 10 NYS3d 715. Correction on case name abbreviation for shortName: “In the Matter of Cheyenne BB.” -> “Matter of Cheyenne BB.” (per Bluebook standard for “In the Matter of” cases). Final check on citation tags: 1. Family Ct Act article 10 -> Family Ct Act article 10 (Note: Article 10 starts at 1011, standard is to cite the article or the first section if range is stripped. Cite=“N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act Art. 10” or “N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1011“). The instructions say “Range - use first section” but also “Gen. Bus. Law § 349 et seq.“. I will use “N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act Art. 10“. 2. Matter of Blaize F. [Christopher F.], 74 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010] -> ... Final output generation.