Rivera v. Scully

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Scully

150 A.D.2d 379, 543 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610

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

DecidedMay 1, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 379 (Rivera v. Scully) 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

Rivera v. Scully, 150 A.D.2d 379, 543 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination, inter alia, placing the petitioner in involuntary protective custody, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Donovan, J.), dated June 9, 1987, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant contends that the petition should be dismissed under the mootness doctrine since the petitioner was afforded the relief requested during the pendency of the appeal. We disagree. Inasmuch as the petitioner regained his prior status only by virtue of the State’s compliance with the order under review, the underlying petition is not academic (cf., Matter of Adams v LeFevre, 135 AD2d 1054; Matter of Gonzalez v Jones, 115 AD2d 849). We have examined the [380]*380parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination, inter alia, placing the petitioner in involuntary protective custody, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Donovan, J.), dated June 9, 1987, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant contends that the petition should be dismissed under the mootness doctrine since the petitioner was afforded the relief requested during the pendency of the appeal. We disagree. Inasmuch as the petitioner regained his prior status only by virtue of the State’s compliance with the order under review, the underlying petition is not academic (cf., Matter of Adams v LeFevre, 135 AD2d 1054; Matter of Gonzalez v Jones, 115 AD2d 849). We have examined the [380]*380parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 379, 543 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-scully-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack