Opinion
No. 2020-08721 Index No. 3128/20
07-13-2022
In the Matter of Daniel C. (Anonymous), appellant. and South Beach Psychiatric Center, respondent.
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Garden City, NY (Michael D. Neville and Felicia B. Rosen of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Eric Del Pozo, and Blair Greenwald of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33 to retain a patient in a hospital for involuntary psychiatric care for a period not to exceed one year, the patient appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Charles M. Troia, J.), dated October 19, 2020. The order, after a hearing, authorized the petitioner to retain the patient for further care and treatment for a period not to exceed one year.
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Garden City, NY (Michael D. Neville and Felicia B. Rosen of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Eric Del Pozo, and Blair Greenwald of counsel), for respondent.
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P. ROBERT J. MILLER LARA J. GENOVESI WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
By order to show cause dated October 21, 2021, the parties to the appeal were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the appeal from the order dated October 19, 2020, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic as that order has expired by its own terms. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated January 7, 2022, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.
Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33, the Supreme Court may authorize the retention of a patient in a hospital for involuntary psychiatric care upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and in need of further care and treatment, and that the patient poses a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others (see Matter of Marie H., 25 A.D.3d 704). Generally, "an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714). Here, the order authorizing the patient's retention has expired by its terms, thus rendering the appeal academic (see Matter of Mark T. [Stabinsky], 188 A.D.3d 1221, 1222; Matter of G., Cynthia [Kings County Hosp.], 188 A.D.3d 881, 882; Matter of Anonymous [South Beach Psychiatric Ctr.], 114 A.D.3d 675, 676). Contrary to the appellant's contention, this case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715; Matter of Torres v Senft, 205 A.D.3d 1031).
IANNACCI, J.P., MILLER, GENOVESI and FORD, JJ., concur.