Matter of Max F. (Emma F.-G.)

Jul 25, 2012
2010-08583
Versions:2012 NY Slip Op 05741
97 AD3d 816

In the Matter of Max F., Jr. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F.-G., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Andrea L.H. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Elijah-Khalil H. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Kai Ariyian H. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Kennard C.R., Jr. Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Emma F., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.) —[*1]

Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

John Ciampoli, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van der Wagg of counsel), for respondent.

Amy L. Colvin, Huntington, N.Y., attorney for the child Max F. (no brief filed).

[*2] Tomasina Mastroianni, Westbury, N.Y., attorney for the children Andrea L.H., Elijah-Khalil H., Kai Ariyian H., and Kennard C.R., Jr. (no brief filed).

In five related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Emma F.-G., also known as Emma F., appeals from (1) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Nassau County (Dane, J.), dated July 20, 2010, which, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she had neglected the child Max F., Jr., (2) an order of fact-finding and disposition of the same court, also dated July 20, 2010, which, after the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, inter alia, found that she had neglected the children Andrea L.H., Elijah-Khalil H., Kai Ariyian H., and Kennard C.R., Jr., and (3) two orders of protection of the same court, also dated July 20, 2010.

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeals from the orders of protection are dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant‘s contention, the Family Court‘s determination that she neglected the subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A]; Matter of Albert Francis B., 66 AD3d 769 [2009]).

The orders of protection expired by their own terms on July 19, 2011, and the determination of the appeals from those orders would, under the facts of this case, have no direct effect upon the parties (see Matter of Brittany C. [Linda C.], 67 AD3d 788 [2009]; Matter of Edelyn S., 62 AD3d 713, 713-714 [2009]). Accordingly, the appeals from the orders of protection must be dismissed as academic.

The appellant‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, A.P.J., Skelos, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.