Opinion
02-09-2024
In the Matter of UPSTATE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Petitioner-Respondent, v. BRYANT W., Respondent-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
ELIZABETH S. FORTINO, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, ROCHESTER (PATRICK T. CHAMBERLAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Robert E. Antonacci, II, J.), entered November 2, 2022. The order, inter alia, authorized the administration of medication to respondent.
ELIZABETH S. FORTINO, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, ROCHESTER (PATRICK T. CHAMBERLAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, NOWAK, DELCONTE, AND KEANE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order granting petitioner’s application for an order continuing a prior order authorizing petitioner to administer medication to respondent over his objection and transferring such authority from petitioner to the Onondaga County Justice Center. In appeal No. 2, respondent appeals from an order denying his motion seeking leave to renew, inter alia, his opposition to petitioner’s application. Because the order has since expired, we dismiss as moot the appeals from the orders in appeal Nos. 1 and 2 (see Matter of Russell v. Tripp, 144 A.D.3d 1593, 1594, 40 N.Y.S.3d 308 [4th Dept. 2016]; see also Matter of Upstate Univ. Hosp. v. Jason L., 219 A.D.3d 1147, 1150, 194 N.Y.S.3d 405 [4th Dept. 2023]; see generally People ex rel. Luck v. Squires, 173 A.D.3d 1767, 1767, 100 N.Y.S.3d 603 [4th Dept. 2019]). Contrary to respondent’s contention in both appeals, we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of McGrath, 245 A.D.2d 1081, 1082, 667 N.Y.S.2d 550 [4th Dept. 1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980]).