Cohn v. Jonathan A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohn v. Jonathan A.

293 A.D.2d 535, 739 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 535 (Cohn v. Jonathan A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohn v. Jonathan A., 293 A.D.2d 535, 739 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to [536]*536Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 to authorize assisted outpatient treatment, the appeal is from a judgment of tbie Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated December 18, 2000, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Before this appeal was heard, the appellant signed a voluntary agreement to participate in an assisted outpatient treatment program and the challenged order and judgment has expired, thus rendering the appeal academic. We do not find that the appeal should be heard under the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to [536]*536Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 to authorize assisted outpatient treatment, the appeal is from a judgment of tbie Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated December 18, 2000, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Before this appeal was heard, the appellant signed a voluntary agreement to participate in an assisted outpatient treatment program and the challenged order and judgment has expired, thus rendering the appeal academic. We do not find that the appeal should be heard under the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 535, 739 N.Y.S.2d 833, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-v-jonathan-a-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack