Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: DARISA D., Petitioner-Respondent, v. BIENVENIDA D., Respondent-Appellant.

Decided: February 14, 2006

TOM, J.P., MAZZARELLI, SAXE, NARDELLI, McGUIRE, JJ. Neal D. Futerfas, White Plains, for appellant. White & Case LLP, New York (Andrea J. Chiller of counsel), for respondent. Lawyers for Children, Inc., New York (Glenn Metsch-Ampel of counsel), and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Sean Shields of counsel), for the child.

Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about January 26, 2005, which, after a trial, granted the petition for custody of the subject child, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

 The appeal has been rendered moot because, during its pendency, the subject child reached the age of majority and, accordingly, can no longer be the subject of a custody order (see Matter of Norwood v. Capone, 15 A.D.3d 790, 792-793, 790 N.Y.S.2d 270 [2005], appeal dismissed 4 N.Y.3d 878, 798 N.Y.S.2d 721, 831 N.E.2d 967 [2005];  Slater-Mau v. Mau, 4 A.D.3d 658, 772 N.Y.S.2d 134 [2004];  Matter of Lazaro v. Lazaro, 227 A.D.2d 402, 642 N.Y.S.2d 67 [1996] ).   The circumstances presented, including, in particular, that Family Court did not make any finding with respect to the allegations of abuse and mistreatment, do not warrant addressing the issues raised under an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ).