In re Geraldine P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Geraldine P.

27 A.D.3d 755, 810 N.Y.S.2d 919

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 2006·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 to authorize continued assisted outpatient treatment, Geraldine E appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of [756]*756the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered August 30, 2004, as, after a hearing, upon directing that she receive continued assisted outpatient treatment for a period of 12 months, authorized the Nassau County Department of Mental Health “to take all appropriate steps to assure compliance” with the provisions directing continued assisted outpatient treatment should she fail to comply.

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

The order and judgment expired by its own terms in August 2005. Accordingly, this appeal is academic, and the issue raised is not sufficiently substantial or novel to warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715 [1980]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 to authorize continued assisted outpatient treatment, Geraldine E appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of [756]*756the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), entered August 30, 2004, as, after a hearing, upon directing that she receive continued assisted outpatient treatment for a period of 12 months, authorized the Nassau County Department of Mental Health “to take all appropriate steps to assure compliance” with the provisions directing continued assisted outpatient treatment should she fail to comply.

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

The order and judgment expired by its own terms in August 2005. Accordingly, this appeal is academic, and the issue raised is not sufficiently substantial or novel to warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798 [1987]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713-715 [1980]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

In re Geraldine P., 27 A.D.3d 755, 810 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

27 A.D.3d 755 (In re Geraldine P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related