STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2011

DocketKAH 09-01010

StatusPublished

This text of STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v (STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v) 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

STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 79 KAH 09-01010 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. JOHN D. VANILLE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT, ORLEANS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, BUFFALO (VICKY L. VALVO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (Tracey A. Bannister, J.), entered May 8, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and discharged petitioner from the custody of respondents.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment granting the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus with respect to petitioner’s civil commitment pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Here, there is no pending action that would provide a legal 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; see generally People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951, lv denied 12 NY3d 711; People ex rel. Cook v Leonardo, 271 AD2d 773). We further conclude that this appeal does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Hearst, 50 NY2d at 714-715).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 79 KAH 09-01010 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL. JOHN D. VANILLE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SUPERINTENDENT, ORLEANS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE AND NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, BUFFALO (VICKY L. VALVO OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (Tracey A. Bannister, J.), entered May 8, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and discharged petitioner from the custody of respondents.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from a judgment granting the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus with respect to petitioner’s civil commitment pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. We conclude that the appeal must be dismissed as moot. Here, there is no pending action that would provide a legal 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; see generally People ex rel. Hampton v Dennison, 59 AD3d 951, lv denied 12 NY3d 711; People ex rel. Cook v Leonardo, 271 AD2d 773). We further conclude that this appeal does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Hearst, 50 NY2d at 714-715).

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STATE OF NEW YORK, VANILLE, JOHN D. v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-new-york-vanille-john-d-v-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack