In re Lee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lee

27 A.D.3d 1136, 810 N.Y.S.2d 715

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1136 (In re Lee) 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 Lee, 27 A.D.3d 1136, 810 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John W. Grow, J.), entered October 22, 2004. The order, among other things, authorized petitioner to administer medication to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting petitioner’s application seeking authorization to administer medication to respondent over his objection. The order has since expired, rendering the appeal moot (see Matter of McCue, 281 [1137]*1137AD2d 420 [2001]; see also Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081 [1997]), and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see McGrath, 245 AD2d at 1082; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Green and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John W. Grow, J.), entered October 22, 2004. The order, among other things, authorized petitioner to administer medication to respondent.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting petitioner’s application seeking authorization to administer medication to respondent over his objection. The order has since expired, rendering the appeal moot (see Matter of McCue, 281 [1137]*1137AD2d 420 [2001]; see also Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081 [1997]), and this case does not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine (see McGrath, 245 AD2d at 1082; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Green and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1136, 810 N.Y.S.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lee-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack