State of New York
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Third Judicial Department
Decided and Entered: October 27, 2016 521958
________________________________
In the Matter of ARIEZ T.,
Alleged to be a Neglected
Child.
SCHENECTADY COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Respondent;
JOHN T.,
Appellant.
________________________________
Calendar Date: September 6, 2016
Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Rose and Clark, JJ.
__________
Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.
Kevin M. Litz, Schenectady County Department of Social
Services, Schenectady, for respondent.
Alexandra G. Verrigni, Rexford, attorney for the child.
__________
Lynch, J.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady
County (Powers, J.), entered June 30, 2015, which, in a
proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, denied
respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
Respondent is the father of a child born in December 2014.
Family Court removed the child from his mother's care immediately
after his birth. In April 2015, petitioner commenced this
proceeding to adjudicate the child to be neglected based, in
-2- 521958
part, on respondent's long history of substance abuse coupled
with his admission that one month earlier, he had been admitted
to the hospital after he consumed "70 beers and snorted an eight
ball of cocaine." Respondent moved to dismiss the neglect
petition, arguing that, without an allegation that the conduct
occurred in the child's presence, there was no basis for Family
Court to find that he had neglected the child. In June 2015,
Family Court denied the motion, finding that petitioner
established a prima facie case for neglect and permitted the
proceeding to continue. Respondent now appeals.
The attorney for the child advises that, during the
pendency of this appeal, petitioner filed a permanent neglect
petition pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, and Family
Court determined that the child was abandoned (see Social
Services Law § 384-b [5]). On April 26, 2016, the court
terminated respondent's parental rights to the child. Under
these circumstances, we agree with the attorney for the child
that respondent's appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of
Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Riley
SS. [Richard SS.], 90 AD3d 1179, 1179 [2011]). Although there is
an exception to the mootness doctrine where a finding of neglect
creates a stigma that affects future proceedings (see Matter of
Bayley W. [Jaden W.], 100 AD3d 1203, 1203-1204 [2012]), here,
because there was no such factual finding, the exception does not
apply (see Matter of Maddock E. [Luis E.], 138 AD3d 559, 559-560
[2016]).
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 521958
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without
costs.
ENTER:
Robert D. Mayberger
Clerk of the Court