Matter of McCulloch v. Melvin H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of McCulloch v. Melvin H.

2017 NY Slip Op 9078, 156 A.D.3d 1480, 65 N.Y.S.3d 835

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2017

Docket1508 CA 16-00865

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 9078 (Matter of McCulloch v. Melvin H.) 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 McCulloch v. Melvin H., 2017 NY Slip Op 9078, 156 A.D.3d 1480, 65 N.Y.S.3d 835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered March 14, 2016. The order 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 has since expired, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Bosco [Quinton F.], 100 AD3d 1525, 1526 [4th Dept 2012]), and this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Cur-ran and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), entered March 14, 2016. The order 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 has since expired, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Bosco [Quinton F.], 100 AD3d 1525, 1526 [4th Dept 2012]), and this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Cur-ran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 9078, 156 A.D.3d 1480, 65 N.Y.S.3d 835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-mcculloch-v-melvin-h-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack