Kunz v. Shahadoth C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kunz v. Shahadoth C.

2017 NY Slip Op 3594, 150 A.D.3d 412, 56 N.Y.S.3d 461

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

DecidedMay 4, 2017

Docket3523 530352/16

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3594 (Kunz v. Shahadoth C.) 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

Kunz v. Shahadoth C., 2017 NY Slip Op 3594, 150 A.D.3d 412, 56 N.Y.S.3d 461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which granted the petition and authorized petitioner to involuntarily administer medical treatment to respondent for up to six months, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

By its own terms, the order which respondent seeks to challenge expired on December 16, 2016. Furthermore, it is undisputed that, in November 2016, respondent was transferred to another medical facility, and petitioner no longer has any direct stake in respondent’s medical treatment. Accordingly, the order is moot, and, under the circumstances presented, the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on March 28, 2017 (148 AD3d 600 [2017]) is hereby recalled and vacated (see 2017 NY Slip Op 72494[U] [2017] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Ruth Feinman, J.), entered June 16, 2016, which granted the petition and authorized petitioner to involuntarily administer medical treatment to respondent for up to six months, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

By its own terms, the order which respondent seeks to challenge expired on December 16, 2016. Furthermore, it is undisputed that, in November 2016, respondent was transferred to another medical facility, and petitioner no longer has any direct stake in respondent’s medical treatment. Accordingly, the order is moot, and, under the circumstances presented, the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

The Decision and Order of this Court entered herein on March 28, 2017 (148 AD3d 600 [2017]) is hereby recalled and vacated (see 2017 NY Slip Op 72494[U] [2017] [decided simultaneously herewith]).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3594, 150 A.D.3d 412, 56 N.Y.S.3d 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunz-v-shahadoth-c-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack