Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Trinity Y. (Taneisha U.) 2023 NY Slip Op 05675 Decided on November 14, 2023 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 14, 2023
Before: Kapnick, J.P., Singh, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.
Docket No. N5102/21 Appeal No. 994-994A Case No. 2023-00626

[*1]In the Matter of Trinity Y., A Child Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Taneisha U., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.



Larry Bachner, New York, for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Eva L. Jerome of counsel), for respondent.

Dawne A. Mitchell, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Judith Stern of counsel), Attorney for the child.



Order, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2023, which, inter alia, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the underlying petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from that part of the order which denied respondent's motion to modify a temporary order of protection dated August 10, 2022, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Application by respondent's assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues that could be raised on this appeal.

Respondent mother's challenge to the order of protection dated August 10, 2022, is moot, as the order expired by its own terms on September 12, 2022, and was succeeded by subsequent orders of protection (see Matter of Camille L. [Dawn F.], 170 AD3d 580 [1st Dept 2019]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: November 14, 2023



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.