In re Melvin S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Melvin S.

57 A.D.3d 1002, 869 N.Y.2d 791

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1002 (In re Melvin S.) 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 Melvin S., 57 A.D.3d 1002, 869 N.Y.2d 791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Although the period of retention directed by the order appealed from has expired, under the circumstances, the matter qualifies as an exception to the mootness doctrine, in that, inter alia, the issue presented is likely to recur and may in the future evade review (see Matter of Harry M., 96 AD2d 201, 202 [1983]).

It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient at issue was mentally ill, in need of further treatment, and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others, such that his retention is warranted (see Matter of John N., 52 AD3d 834, 835 [2008]). In this case, the petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the patient’s mental illness posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others (see Matter of Julio R., 16 AD3d 423, 424 [2005]; Matter of Francine T., 302 AD2d 533, 533-534 [2003]; Matter of Gilliard v Sanchez, 219 AD2d 500, 501 [1995]). Miller, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Although the period of retention directed by the order appealed from has expired, under the circumstances, the matter qualifies as an exception to the mootness doctrine, in that, inter alia, the issue presented is likely to recur and may in the future evade review (see Matter of Harry M., 96 AD2d 201, 202 [1983]).

It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient at issue was mentally ill, in need of further treatment, and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others, such that his retention is warranted (see Matter of John N., 52 AD3d 834, 835 [2008]). In this case, the petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the patient’s mental illness posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others (see Matter of Julio R., 16 AD3d 423, 424 [2005]; Matter of Francine T., 302 AD2d 533, 533-534 [2003]; Matter of Gilliard v Sanchez, 219 AD2d 500, 501 [1995]). Miller, J.E, Angiolillo, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1002, 869 N.Y.2d 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-melvin-s-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack