People ex rel. Vanille v. Superintendent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Vanille v. Superintendent

82 A.D.3d 1583, 918 N.Y.2d 919

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2011

DocketAppeal No. 2

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1583 (People ex rel. Vanille v. Superintendent) 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

People ex rel. Vanille v. Superintendent, 82 A.D.3d 1583, 918 N.Y.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment granting the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus with respect to petitioner’s civil commitment pursuant to Mentad Hygiene Law article 10. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Here, there is no pending action that would provide a [1584]*1584legal basis upon which petitioner may be detained, and thus “the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this appeal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see generally People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]; People ex rel. Cook v Leonardo, 271 AD2d 773 [2000]). We further conclude that this appeal does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Hearst, 50 NY2d at 714-715). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment granting the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus with respect to petitioner’s civil commitment pursuant to Mentad Hygiene Law article 10. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Here, there is no pending action that would provide a [1584]*1584legal basis upon which petitioner may be detained, and thus “the rights of the parties cannot be affected by the determination of this appeal” (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; see generally People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]; People ex rel. Cook v Leonardo, 271 AD2d 773 [2000]). We further conclude that this appeal does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Hearst, 50 NY2d at 714-715). Present — Smith, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 1583, 918 N.Y.2d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-vanille-v-superintendent-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack