In re Delores I.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Delores I.

214 A.D.2d 1021, 626 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1021 (In re Delores I.) 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

In re Delores I., 214 A.D.2d 1021, 626 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on [1022]*1022the petition. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition, seeking review of an order of retention, as untimely. The time within which to commence a review proceeding begins to run on the date that the allegedly ill person is served with the order of retention (see, Matter of Coates, 9 NY2d 242, 252, appeal dismissed sub nom. Coates v Walters, 368 US 34). Petitioner was served with that order on May 27, 1994; thus, her petition, filed on June 17, 1994, is timely (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35). Although the order of retention has expired, we decline to treat the issue as moot. Because orders of retention are of short duration, it is likely that this issue would otherwise evade appellate review (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Bender, J. —Mental Hygiene Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings on [1022]*1022the petition. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition, seeking review of an order of retention, as untimely. The time within which to commence a review proceeding begins to run on the date that the allegedly ill person is served with the order of retention (see, Matter of Coates, 9 NY2d 242, 252, appeal dismissed sub nom. Coates v Walters, 368 US 34). Petitioner was served with that order on May 27, 1994; thus, her petition, filed on June 17, 1994, is timely (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35). Although the order of retention has expired, we decline to treat the issue as moot. Because orders of retention are of short duration, it is likely that this issue would otherwise evade appellate review (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Bender, J. —Mental Hygiene Law.) Present—Pine, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 1021, 626 N.Y.S.2d 611, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-delores-i-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack