IN RE: CHEYENNE QQ. and Others (2007)

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), entered April 7, 2006, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct. Act article 10, to extend the placement of two of respondent's children.

 The circumstances leading to the placement of two of respondent's four children are set forth in our recent decision addressing an appeal from an earlier order in this proceeding (37 A.D.3d 977, 830 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2007] ). The current appeal must be dismissed.   The order of placement from which respondent appeals has expired and a subsequent order was entered on consent.   No appeal generally lies from a consent order (see Matter of Forbus v. Stolfi, 300 A.D.2d 852, 852, 752 N.Y.S.2d 158 [2002], lv. dismissed 99 N.Y.2d 642, 760 N.Y.S.2d 92, 790 N.E.2d 265 [2003];  cf. Matter of Leighton v. Bazan, 36 A.D.3d 1178, 1179, 829 N.Y.S.2d 254 [2007] ).   An appeal from an expired order that has been replaced by an order from which there is no appeal is moot (see Matter of Jolyssa EE. [Marie EE.], 28 A.D.3d 824, 825, 812 N.Y.S.2d 188 [2006];  Matter of Norbert YY. [Tammy A.], 28 A.D.3d 815, 816, 811 N.Y.S.2d 597 [2006] ).   The exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable.   Moreover, we note that under the current consent order the children have been reunited with respondent as they are under a trial discharge to her home.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

LAHTINEN, J.

MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO and ROSE, JJ., concur.