Matter of Dill v. Michael P.

217 A.D.3d 1431, 190 N.Y.S.3d 771, 2023 NY Slip Op 03158
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 9, 2023
Docket540 CA 22-00988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.D.3d 1431 (Matter of Dill v. Michael P.) 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 Dill v. Michael P., 217 A.D.3d 1431, 190 N.Y.S.3d 771, 2023 NY Slip Op 03158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

Matter of Dill v Michael P. (2023 NY Slip Op 03158)
Matter of Dill v Michael P.
2023 NY Slip Op 03158
Decided on June 9, 2023
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on June 9, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND OGDEN, JJ.

540 CA 22-00988

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF DANIELLE DILL, PSY.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

MICHAEL P., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.


TODD G. MONAHAN, LITTLE FALLS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (CHRISTOPHER LIBERATI-CONANT OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.



Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Louis P. Gigliotti, A.J.), entered May 19, 2022, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law section 33.03. The order, inter alia, granted petitioner's application for authorization to administer medication to respondent over his objection.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order granting petitioner's application for authorization to administer medication to respondent over his objection. The order, inter alia, provided that "the [o]rder shall terminate" upon respondent's discharge from civil hospitalization. Because respondent has been discharged from civil hospitalization and transferred to a correctional facility, the order terminated by its own terms, rendering this appeal moot (see generally Matter of McGrath , 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 1997]), and this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see id. ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Entered: June 9, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Matter of Blossom V.
2024 NY Slip Op 04670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 A.D.3d 1431, 190 N.Y.S.3d 771, 2023 NY Slip Op 03158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-dill-v-michael-p-nyappdiv-2023.