Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. (Tee Tee Ann W.)

Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. (Tee Tee Ann W.) 2009 NY Slip Op 09664 [68 AD3d 1119] December 22, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of Tishauna Patricia N. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kendell Anthony B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Kendra Kimberlyn B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 3.) In the Matter of Kendasha Tashauna W.-B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 4.) In the Matter of Shundasha Cheryl B. Administration for Children's Services et al., Respondents; Tee Tee Ann W., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 5.)

—[*1] Dawn M. Shammas, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Susan B. Eisner of counsel), for respondent Administration for Children's Services.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Claire V. Merkine of counsel), attorney for the children.

In five related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Gruebel, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 22, 2008, which denied her motion to reinstate her visitation with the subject children. Separate motions by the petitioner Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services and the attorney for the children, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the order dated December 22, 2008, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 10, 2009 [2009 NY Slip Op 82708(U)], those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal were held in abeyance and were referred [*2]to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motions, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is,

Ordered that those branches of the motions which were to dismiss the appeal are granted, and the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother's appeal from the order denying her motion to reinstate visitation with the subject children has been rendered academic in light of a subsequent order of the Family Court reinstating her visitation with the subject children and, therefore, must be dismissed (see Pollack v Pollack, 56 AD3d 637, 637-638 [2008]; Matter of Damian M., 41 AD3d 600 [2007]; People ex rel. A.E.F. v K.T.L., 40 AD3d 894, 895 [2007]).

The mother's contention that the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in approving a permanency goal of placement for adoption for the subject children is not properly before this Court because that issue was not determined in the order appealed from. Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur.