Russell v. Tripp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Tripp

144 A.D.3d 1593, 40 N.Y.S.3d 308

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

DecidedNovember 10, 2016

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 144 A.D.3d 1593 (Russell v. Tripp) 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

Russell v. Tripp, 144 A.D.3d 1593, 40 N.Y.S.3d 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Erin P. Gall, J.), entered July 20, 2015. The order, inter alia, granted the [1594]*1594application of petitioner 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 [2012]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, NeMoyer, Curran 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 (Erin P. Gall, J.), entered July 20, 2015. The order, inter alia, granted the [1594]*1594application of petitioner 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 [2012]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Peradotto, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.3d 1593, 40 N.Y.S.3d 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-tripp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack