In re Richard S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Richard S.

242 A.D.2d 575, 664 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8718

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

DecidedSeptember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 575 (In re Richard 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 Richard S., 242 A.D.2d 575, 664 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16) for a rehearing and review of a subsequent retention order, the appeal, by permission, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 27, 1996, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination dated December 13, 1995, which authorized the continued retention [576]*576of the petitioner pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 27, 1995.

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

As the underlying retention order expired by its own terms on August 31, 1996, any determination by this Court will not aifect the rights of the parties with respect to this proceeding. The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as academic. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPL 330.20 (16) for a rehearing and review of a subsequent retention order, the appeal, by permission, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 27, 1996, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination dated December 13, 1995, which authorized the continued retention [576]*576of the petitioner pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated April 27, 1995.

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

As the underlying retention order expired by its own terms on August 31, 1996, any determination by this Court will not aifect the rights of the parties with respect to this proceeding. The matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as academic. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 575, 664 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richard-s-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack