IN RE: Jamie STEWART (2008)

 Petitioner father commenced this proceeding seeking to modify an order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to respondent mother on the ground that the mother had intentionally alienated the parties' child from the father since the entry of that order.   We conclude that Family Court properly granted the petition and determined that a modification of the existing custody arrangement is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Charles M.O. v. Heather S.O., 52 A.D.3d 1279, 860 N.Y.S.2d 773;  Matter of Guidice v. Burruano, 255 A.D.2d 911, 679 N.Y.S.2d 915).   We reject the mother's contention that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction inasmuch as the father appropriately commenced this action by filing a petition for modification (see Family Ct. Act § 651[b] ).  We reject the further contention of the mother that the court erred in awarding her supervised visitation, and we perceive no basis upon which to disturb the court's determination that supervised visitation is in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Hall v. Porter, 52 A.D.3d 1289, 859 N.Y.S.2d 786).   Contrary to the mother's contention, the Law Guardian took an active role in the proceedings (see generally Matter of Carballeira v. Shumway, 273 A.D.2d 753, 755, 710 N.Y.S.2d 149, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 764, 716 N.Y.S.2d 38, 739 N.E.2d 294), and the Law Guardian's advocacy for the child during summation did not in effect constitute a report to the court (see Matter of Rueckert v. Reilly, 282 A.D.2d 608, 609, 723 N.Y.S.2d 232).   Finally, we conclude that the mother's remaining contentions are moot because the rights of the parties would not be affected by our review of those contentions (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).   Those contentions do not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine inasmuch as the circumstances at issue in those contentions are unlikely to recur, do not typically evade review, and do not raise a substantial and novel question (see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801, 811, 766 N.Y.S.2d 654, 798 N.E.2d 1047, cert. denied 540 U.S. 1017, 124 S.Ct. 570, 157 L.Ed.2d 430).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: