In re Kirk V., 840 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Kirk V., 840 N.E.2d 113 (N.Y. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Terwilliger v. Jubie, 84 A.D.3d 1520 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kirk V., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Providencia V., Respondents Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services
New York Court of Appeals.
Oct 25, 2005.
Published opinion
840 N.E.2d 113
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for appellant., Lansner & Kubitschek, New York City (Carolyn A. Kubitschek of counsel), for Providencia V, respondent., Wendy Abels, New York City, for Ricardo V, respondent., Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, New York City {Kenneth G. Roberts and Jill L. Mandell of counsel), for Lawyers for Children, Inc., Law Guardian.
Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for consideration of the appeal.

The incarceration of respondent parents’ older son was not a change in circumstances rendering the appeal from the dis[*842] missal of the neglect petition moot. Where “a judicial determination carries immediate, practical consequences for the parties, the controversy is not moot” (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003]). The older child’s incarceration did not affect the issue underlying the neglect petition—respondent parents’ alleged failure to protect the younger child. The outcome of the neglect petition carries potential consequences for respondent parents as well as the younger child (see e.g. Matter of Alijah C., 1 NY3d 375 [2004]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.