Matter of Albert C. v. Gross

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Albert C. v. Gross

2017 NY Slip Op 8479, 156 A.D.3d 421, 64 N.Y.S.3d 523

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2017

Docket5128 250243/16 [5514] 126/17

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8479 (Matter of Albert C. v. Gross) 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

Matter of Albert C. v. Gross, 2017 NY Slip Op 8479, 156 A.D.3d 421, 64 N.Y.S.3d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

The CPLR article 78 application seeking relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus is denied and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (a), a trial shall be commenced within 60 days of the court’s probable cause determination. However, this deadline is not strictly construed (Matter of State of New York v Keith F, 149 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017]). The State’s failure to comply with the deadline does not affect the validity of the article 10 petition or actions subject to deadlines (id.; see also Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 501 [1977]). The 32-day delay of trial did not otherwise violate petitioner’s due process rights where it was done to accommodate a family medical emergency of a crucial expert witness.

Accordingly we deny a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent to restore the jury trial.

Justice Michael A. Gross has elected, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (i), not to appear in this proceeding.

Concur—Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

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

The CPLR article 78 application seeking relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus is denied and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (a), a trial shall be commenced within 60 days of the court’s probable cause determination. However, this deadline is not strictly construed (Matter of State of New York v Keith F, 149 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017]). The State’s failure to comply with the deadline does not affect the validity of the article 10 petition or actions subject to deadlines (id.; see also Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 501 [1977]). The 32-day delay of trial did not otherwise violate petitioner’s due process rights where it was done to accommodate a family medical emergency of a crucial expert witness.

Accordingly we deny a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent to restore the jury trial.

Justice Michael A. Gross has elected, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (i), not to appear in this proceeding.

Concur—Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8479, 156 A.D.3d 421, 64 N.Y.S.3d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-albert-c-v-gross-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack