COLVIN, JOHN v. COVINGTON, RONNIE

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 19, 2013
DocketCA 12-00538
StatusPublished

This text of COLVIN, JOHN v. COVINGTON, RONNIE (COLVIN, JOHN v. COVINGTON, RONNIE) 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
COLVIN, JOHN v. COVINGTON, RONNIE, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

810 CA 12-00538 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., SCONIERS, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN COLVIN, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, FIVE POINTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE COVINGTON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALLYSON B. LEVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Seneca County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), entered February 17, 2012. The order, among other things, directed respondent to cooperate with the medical personnel of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted the petition seeking to require him to cooperate with the medical personnel of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and to cooperate in the methods of force feeding and necessary medical treatment. We conclude that this appeal is moot because the order by its own terms has expired, and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). We add only that there is no merit to respondent’s contention that the order does not “ ‘conform strictly to [Supreme Court’s] decision’ ” (Spier v Horowitz, 16 AD3d 400, 401).

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
409 N.E.2d 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Spier v. Horowitz
16 A.D.3d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
COLVIN, JOHN v. COVINGTON, RONNIE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colvin-john-v-covington-ronnie-nyappdiv-2013.