Matter of J. V. (Shelly R.--Erikson P.)

Matter of J. V. (Shelly R.--Erikson P.) 2024 NY Slip Op 02267 Decided on April 25, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: April 25, 2024
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, Rosado, Michael, JJ.
Docket No. NA-6156/17 NA-15360-1/16 Appeal No. 2131 Case No. 2022-00115

[*1]In the Matter of J. V. and Others, Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, etc., Shelly R., Respondent-Respondent, Erikson P., Respondent-Appellant, Administration for Children's Services, Petitioner-Respondent.

John R. Eyerman, New York, for appellant.

The Bronx Defenders, Bronx (David Shalleck-Klein of counsel), and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Amanda C. Weingarten of counsel), for Shelly R., respondent.

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

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

Appeal from an amended order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (E. Grace Park, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2021, which, among other things, ordered the release of the subject child to respondent mother for six months and directed the appellant father to complete an anger management program, a parenting class, and permitted supervised visitation between the father and the subject child, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

Application by the father's assigned counsel to withdraw 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 assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeal. Because the terms of the dispositional order expired on April 14, 2022, and no extensions were sought or directed, the appeal has been rendered academic (Matter of Adena I. [Claude I.], 91 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, as the father consented to the order, he is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511 and no appeal lies from the order (Matter of Adrianna M.F. [Shanikqa C.F.], 212 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2023]; CPLR 5511).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 25, 2024