Matter of Kirk V. v Providencia V.

Matter of Kirk V. 2005 NY Slip Op 07832 [5 NY3d 840] October 25, 2005 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 4, 2006

[*1] In the Matter of Kirk V., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Providencia V. et al., Respondents; Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services, Appellant.

Decided October 25, 2005

Matter of Kirk V., 15 AD3d 285, reversed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for appellant.

Lansner & Kubitschek, New York City (Carolyn A. Kubitschek of counsel), for Providencia V., respondent.

Wendy Abels, New York City, for Ricardo V., respondent.

Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP, New York City (Kenneth G. Roberts and Jill L. Mandell of counsel), for Lawyers for Children, Inc., Law Guardian.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for consideration of the appeal.

The incarceration of respondent parents' older son was not a change in circumstances rendering the appeal from the dismissal of the neglect petition moot. Where "a judicial determination carries immediate, practical consequences for the parties, the controversy [*2]is not moot" (Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812 [2003]). The older child's incarceration did not affect the issue underlying the neglect petition—respondent parents' alleged failure to protect the younger child. The outcome of the neglect petition carries potential consequences for respondent parents as well as the younger child (see e.g. Matter of Alijah C., 1 NY3d 375 [2004]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.