In re Rose F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Rose F.

293 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537

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

DecidedApril 8, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 538 (In re Rose F.) 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 Rose F., 293 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60 to authorize assisted outpatient treatment, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated November 1, 2000, which granted the petition.

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

The instant appeal has been rendered academic because the appellant has signed a voluntary agreement for services, and the challenged order and judgment has expired. The appeal does not fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, 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 assisted outpatient treatment, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated November 1, 2000, which granted the petition.

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

The instant appeal has been rendered academic because the appellant has signed a voluntary agreement for services, and the challenged order and judgment has expired. The appeal does not fall within an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Krausman and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 834, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rose-f-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack