In re Michael A., 79 A.D.3d 1230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Michael A., 79 A.D.3d 1230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …furthers the substantial interest, shared by the state, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody proceedings generate a just and enduring result that, above all else, serves the best interests of a child at p. 1231 ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Kody II. v. Shaunta JJ. (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
Notwithstanding Family Court's "broad discretion to make temporary emergency placement decisions" ( Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [3d Dept 2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added]), this general rule applies to a "temporary change of custody in a nonemergency situation" ( Matter of Martin R.G v Ofelia G.O. , 24 AD3d 305, 305 [1st Dept 2005]; compare Matter of Kenneth J. v Lesley B. , 165 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2018]) and "furthers the substantial interest, shared by the State, the children, and the parents, in ensuring that custody procee…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Aviannah Y. (Jeremy SS.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Moreover, contrary to respondent's assertion, his remaining contentions do not raise substantial or novel issues that are likely to recur or evade review and, therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Stephen RR. [Christa TT.] , 169 AD3d 1190 , 1191 [2019]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Tyrell FF. (Jaquasisa GG.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
The contention that this requirement can be waived at respondent's convenience is not "sufficiently substantial to warrant [invoking] the exception to the mootness doctrine" ( Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; see Matter of Eyon X. [Ashley W.] , 163 AD3d at 1146).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Eyon X. (Ashley W.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Although respondent urges us to reach the merits of her appeal in order to provide guidance on temporary removal standards, arguing that issues related thereto frequently recur and evade review, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O. , 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Landyn H. (Matthew H.)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In light of this subsequent order, the appeal from the temporary order is moot (see Matter of Jadalynn HH. [Roy HH.], 135 AD3d 1089 , 1089 [2016]; Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 AD3d 1198 , 1198 [2012]), and we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Aiani YY.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Further, contrary to the mother’s contention, her argument does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Nasira D. [Madelyn D.], 97 AD3d 1002 , 1003 [2012]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Anthony WW.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the challenges to the granting of the extension raised on this appeal are now moot and we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Anthony WW.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, the challenges to the granting of the extension raised on this appeal are now moot and we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Lindsay BB.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Thus, the appeals are moot (see Matter of King v Jackson, 52 AD3d 974, 975 [2008]) and, under the particular circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Skyler R.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Thereafter, the mother and father each stipulated to a finding of neglect, and the mother consented to an order of adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which continues the child’s placement with petitioner until January 2012. * Based upon these subsequent events, this appeal by the mother from the temporary removal order is moot, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Kiearah P., 46 AD3d 958, 959 [2007] ; see also Matter of Cheyenne A., 56 AD3d 1008 , 1009 [2008] ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William M. v. Tompkins County Department of Social Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The father’s appeal of Family Court’s order denying his applications to terminate the child’s placement with DSS and award him custody is moot as a result of a subsequent order issued by Family Court terminating the child’s placement with DSS and returning custody of the child to the mother upon her successful completion of the Family Treatment Court regimen (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Alexander K. [Jennifer N.], 77 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael A., a Neglected Child. Cortland County Department of Social Services, Respondent Patricia A., Frank Sarat, as Attorney for the Child, (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 2, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1230
Garry.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), entered May 7, 2010, which, among other things, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, temporarily placed the subject child in the custody of petitioner.

In July 2009, petitioner commenced proceedings against respondent Patricia A. (hereinafter the mother) and respondent Steven A. (hereinafter the father) alleging that Michael A. (born in 2004) was a neglected child. In both proceedings, Family Court issued temporary orders placing the child in petitioner’s custody, followed shortly thereafter by modified temporary orders placing him in the custody of relatives. The mother and father subsequently consented to findings of neglect without admitting wrongdoing. After hearings on disposition and per[*1231] manency, the court approved permanency plans with the goal of reunification and continued the child’s temporary placement with the relatives until the next permanency hearing, which was set for July 2010.

In May 2010, petitioner made an ex parte application for another modification of the child’s placement, alleging that the relatives had asked to have him removed because they were overwhelmed by the demands of caring for him. Family Court signed an order to show cause that returned the child to petitioner’s custody pending a hearing five days later, and the child was moved to a foster home. At the hearing, the attorney for the child objected to the ex parte removal. The relatives did not appear, and the court continued the child’s temporary placement with petitioner.

The attorney for the child now appeals from the order to show cause, contending that the representative of petitioner who made the application lacked personal knowledge of the circumstances and that no emergency justified the child’s ex parte removal. However, the challenged order was superseded five days later by the orders that continued the child’s placement with petitioner, from which no appeal was taken (see Matter of Darlene L., 38 AD3d 552, 554 [2007]). Further, all parties, including the attorney for the child, later consented to an order under which the child would remain in petitioner’s care until the beginning of the school year, and he has since been returned to respondents. Accordingly, the appeal is moot (see Matter of Shalyse WW., 63 AD3d 1193, 1196-1197 [2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]; Matter of Joseph DD., 300 AD2d 760, 765 [2002], Iv denied 100 NY2d 504 [2003]; Matter of Joyce SS., 245 AD2d 962, 962 [1997]).

The attorney for the child asserts that the issues presented are novel, significant, likely to recur, and likely to evade review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). We find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable. In light of Family Court’s “broad discretion” to make temporary emergency placement decisions (Matter of Damien X., 217 AD2d 762, 763 [1995]), and the fact that the hearing was appropriately scheduled to occur promptly thereafter, the issues presented are not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; compare Matter of Crystal AA., 271 AD2d 771, 771 [2000], Iv dismissed 95 NY2d 903 [2000]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.