Matter of Kylee Y. (Lynn AA.--Timothy Z.)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Kylee Y. (Lynn AA.--Timothy Z.) 2015 NY Slip Op 07872 Decided on October 29, 2015 Appellate Division, Third 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: October 29, 2015
517691

[*1]In the Matter of KYLEE Y. and Others, Neglected Children. CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent;

and

LYNN AA., Respondent. TIMOTHY Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.)



In the Matter of KYLEE Y. and Others, Neglected Children. CLINTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent;DONALD Y., Respondent. TIMOTHY Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Calendar Date: September 10, 2015
Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

Allan B. Cruikshank, Plattsburgh, for appellant.

Ethan D. Bonner, Clinton County Department of Social Services, Plattsburgh, for Clinton County Department of Social Services, respondent.

Omshanti Parnes, Plattsburgh, attorney for the children.




Lahtinen, J.P.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered September 6, 2013, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A, continued placement of the subject children and continued an award of supervised visitation to Timothy Z.

In orders entered in March 2013, Family Court provided Timothy Z. with visitation, supervised by petitioner, of his twin children (born in 2008). The requirement that petitioner supervise visitation was continued in the September 2013 orders from which these appeals were taken and Timothy Z. argues that such requirement is not supported by a sound and substantial basis. We recently dismissed as moot his appeals challenging the supervision provision in the March 2013 orders because his visitation rights had been subsequently terminated in unappealed November 2014 orders (129 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2015]). For the reasons set forth therein, the current appeals are also moot.

Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.



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.