In re David C.

505 N.E.2d 942, 69 N.Y.2d 796, 513 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15395
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 505 N.E.2d 942 (In re David C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re David C., 505 N.E.2d 942, 69 N.Y.2d 796, 513 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15395 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

[798]*798OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as it dismissed the appeal by Michael C., should be affirmed, without costs. The Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal to that court for mootness (see, Matter of Anonymous, 55 NY2d 1021).

The appeal by David C. should be dismissed, without costs, for mootness. We decline to adopt petitioner’s contention that all retention proceedings — because they are necessarily short-lived and therefore typically evade review — should be subject to review irrespective of mootness. The fundamental principle that a court’s power to declare the law is limited to determining actual controversies in pending cases is subject to an exception that permits the courts to preserve particular issues which are recurring, substantial and novel, and typically evade review (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715). Even if we were to accept petitioner’s contention that retention orders typically evade review, no blanket rule could be made for retention proceedings. The determination whether to consider particular issues despite their mootness must depend additionally on the recurring, novel and substantial nature of those issues as they are presented.

Here, we are persuaded that the issue raised — whether an involuntarily retained patient who has not requested a hearing may nonetheless obtain a "rehearing” of a retention order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 15.35 — is not sufficiently substantial or novel to warrant an exercise of this court’s exceptional discretion to retain the appeal despite mootness (see, Matter of Barbara C., 64 NY2d 866, 868; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715, supra).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order insofar as it dismissed the appeal by petitioner Michael C. affirmed, without costs, and appeal by petitioner David C. dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Matter of Joshua J. (Tameka J.)
2025 NY Slip Op 03010 (New York Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Robert F.
34 N.E.3d 829 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Matter of Maurice M. (Kinyamu)
125 A.D.3d 660 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
J., S., STATE OF NEW YORK, v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Subsequent Retention Order Pursuant to CPL 330.20 in Relation to S.J. v. State
111 A.D.3d 1374 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
State v. Maurice G.
32 Misc. 3d 380 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
In re Carpeah N.
77 A.D.3d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Helen DeSanto
74 A.D.3d 1684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cornelius v. City of Oneonta
71 A.D.3d 1282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Zheng Z.
68 A.D.3d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Miguel M.
66 A.D.2d 51 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Geraldine P.
27 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Gonzalez v. Warden of Rikers Island
25 A.D.3d 443 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Fernando L.
13 A.D.3d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
IBE Trade Corp. v. Litvinenko
293 A.D.2d 402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re McCue
281 A.D.2d 420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People ex rel. Perdue v. Jablonsky
174 Misc. 2d 604 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
In re Richard S.
242 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 N.E.2d 942, 69 N.Y.2d 796, 513 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-c-ny-1987.