Matter of Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Young

124 A.D.3d 443, 1 N.Y.S.3d 67

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2015

Docket13845 469/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 443 (Matter of Young) 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 Young, 124 A.D.3d 443, 1 N.Y.S.3d 67 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 31, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application for the continued retention of respondent under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Respondent was involuntarily admitted as a psychiatric patient to petitioner Jacobi Medical Center on July 23, 2014. Jacobi thereafter filed an application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 for authorization to retain respondent at the hospital, which respondent opposed. After a hearing, the court found that respondent was suffering from a mental illness, but granted his request to be released from the hospital, finding that inpatient care and treatment were not essential to respondent’s welfare. We granted a stay of that order pending appeal.

At oral argument, we were advised that respondent had been released from petitioner hospital a few days prior to argument. However, the parties asked that the matter be heard on the merits pursuant to an exception to the mootness doctrine, since the issue of respondent’s condition and potential involuntary commitment is likely to arise again.

*444 “Typically, the doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” (Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 172 [2002]). Respondent’s release from the hospital terminated the controversy represented by this appeal. Contrary to respondent’s contention, this is not the type of case that would warrant an invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 31, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application for the continued retention of respondent under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Respondent was involuntarily admitted as a psychiatric patient to petitioner Jacobi Medical Center on July 23, 2014. Jacobi thereafter filed an application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 for authorization to retain respondent at the hospital, which respondent opposed. After a hearing, the court found that respondent was suffering from a mental illness, but granted his request to be released from the hospital, finding that inpatient care and treatment were not essential to respondent’s welfare. We granted a stay of that order pending appeal.

At oral argument, we were advised that respondent had been released from petitioner hospital a few days prior to argument. However, the parties asked that the matter be heard on the merits pursuant to an exception to the mootness doctrine, since the issue of respondent’s condition and potential involuntary commitment is likely to arise again.

*444 “Typically, the doctrine of mootness is invoked where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy” (Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 98 NY2d 165, 172 [2002]). Respondent’s release from the hospital terminated the controversy represented by this appeal. Contrary to respondent’s contention, this is not the type of case that would warrant an invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 443, 1 N.Y.S.3d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-young-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack