Case Name: In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lynn AA., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donald Y., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-10-29
Citations: 132 A.D.3d 1171
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lynn AA., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donald Y., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Judges: Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 1171–1172

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Lynn AA., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kylee Y. and Others, Neglected Children. Clinton County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Donald Y., Respondent; Timothy Z., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)
[18 NYS3d 363]

Opinion:
Lahtinen, J.P.
Appeals from two orders of the Family Court of Clinton County (Lawliss, J.), entered September 6, 2013, which, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A, continued placement of the subject children and continued an award of supervised visitation to Timothy Z.
In orders entered in March 2013, Family Court provided Timothy Z. with visitation, supervised by petitioner, of his twin children (born in 2008). The requirement that petitioner supervise visitation was continued in the September 2013 orders from which these appeals were taken and Timothy Z. argues that such requirement is not supported by a sound and substantial basis. We recently dismissed as moot his appeals challenging the supervision provision in the March 2013 orders because his visitation rights had been subsequently terminated in unappealed November 2014 orders (129 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2015]). For the reasons set forth therein, the current appeals are also moot.
Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.