You are here: / / CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY...
,

CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner psychiatric hospital did not present sufficient evidence to support an order permitting involuntary treatment of respondent for schizophrenia. The Third Department heard the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine (the involuntary treatment order had already expired):

The exception to the mootness doctrine applies where an issue (1) could readily recur, (2) will typically evade review, (3) is of public importance and (4) represents a substantial and novel issue yet to be decided by this Court … . As pointed out in respondent’s brief, there were 322 applications for authorization to forcibly treat patients who are within the Third Department during 2014 — a contention that adequately demonstrates that proceedings of this nature will readily recur. Since the duration of these orders is tied into the treatment of the patient, who may, as here, be discharged before an appeal is even perfected, we agree that these proceedings do typically evade review … . And, certainly, the proceeding is of public importance because it implicates a patient’s “fundamental liberty interest to reject antipsychotic medication” … . * * *

What we find significant and novel here is how that standard is to be met by a petitioner and applied by the trial court with respect to the formulation of a medication treatment plan, and, for that reason, we will address the merits of the appeal .. .

The fundamental flaw established by this record is that the scope of medications authorized by Supreme Court was overbroad — a flaw conceded by petitioner. The order actually authorized the use of 28 various medications, including medications for symptoms and illnesses that respondent did not have. …

This point implicates the secondary problem presented in that Supreme Court failed to make specific findings on the record as to respondent’s capacity and the viability of the treatment plan. Matter of Lucas QQ. (Lucas QQ.), 2016 NY Slip Op 07904, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED)/APPEALS (CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED)/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, EXCEPTION TO (APPEALS, CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED)/INVOLUTARY TREATMENT (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED)

You might also like
TEACHERS EMPLOYED AT STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES WORKED FROM SEPTEMBER TO JUNE BUT WERE PAID AN ANNUAL SALARY; WHEN EXTRA SUMMER WORK WAS CANCELLED DUE TO COVID THEY APPLIED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS; BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT UNEMPLOYED THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT)
TOWN LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM RUNNING FOR TOWN JUSTICE IN TWO DIFFERENT TOWNS SIMULTANEOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE OPINION OF AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT FOLLOW THE IMPAIRMENT GUIDELINES BY REVIEWING THE UPDATED X-RAYS OF CLAIMANT’S HIP (THIRD DEPT). ​
ONE FRAUDULENT SIGNATURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE DESIGNATING PETITION WAS PERMEATED BY FRAUD (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED HIS INCARCERATED BROTHER WAS BEING HARASSED BY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; HE CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THREATENED TO “BLOW AN OFFICER’S HEAD OFF” “IF THEY TOUCH MY BROTHER;” DEFENDANT’S “MAKING A TERRORISTIC THREAT” CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
Court Improperly Amended Allegations in Neglect Petition
THE EDUCATION LAW PROVISIONS AND RELATED REGULATIONS (1) REQUIRING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND (2) ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDING TO BE CURTAILED AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO ATTEND A DIFFERENT SCHOOL IF THE EQUIVALENCY TEST IS NOT MET ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION... CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF A SEWER SYSTEM SHOULD NOT...