Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Janeudi D. (Anonymous), respondent; Suffolk County Department of Probation, appellant.
Submitted—April 20, 2021
DECISION & ORDER
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the Suffolk County Department of Probation appeals from a permanency hearing order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Paul M. Hensley, J.), dated July 27, 2020. The permanency hearing order, insofar as appealed from, directed the Suffolk County Department of Probation to install a GPS monitoring device on Janeudi D.
ORDERED the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
“It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that the power of a court to declare the law only arises out of, and is limited to, determining the rights of persons which are actually controverted in a particular case pending before the tribunal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 713). “This principle, which forbids courts to pass on academic, hypothetical, moot, or otherwise abstract questions, is founded both in constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, and in methodological strictures which inhere in the decisional process of a common-law judiciary” (id. at 713–714). “Put another way, because courts are not in the business of issuing advisory opinions, they generally will refrain from deciding the merits of a matter unless an adjudication of the merits will result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties” (Matter of Elizabeth C. [Omar C.], 156 AD3d 193, 199 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). An exception to this doctrine applies “where the circumstances of a case evince an overarching public interest in its adjudication, including (1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” (id. at 201 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Here, the Department of Probation's appeal is academic. Since the Family Court directed the Department of Probation to remove the GPS monitoring device in September 2020 and the respondent's placement expired in October 2020, any modification to the directive that the Department of Probation conduct GPS monitoring will have no “immediate and practical consequences to the parties” (id. at 199 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
Moreover, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply. Although the issue raised on this appeal may evade appellate review, there has been no showing that the issue is likely to repeat or that it is substantial and novel (see id. at 201). Accordingly, there is no “overarching public interest in its adjudication” (id.), and we dismiss the appeal as academic.
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2020–05742 (Docket Nos. D–5553–19, D–14240–19)
Decided: May 19, 2021
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)