IN RE: BLOSSOM V. (2024)

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, inter alia, petitioner's application for an order temporarily authorizing petitioner to administer medication to respondent over her objection until July 20, 2023. In appeal No. 2, respondent appeals from an order denying her motion seeking to have the proceedings in this Mental Hygiene Law article 9 matter conducted in person, rather than virtually.

We dismiss both appeals as moot. It is well settled that “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, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980]; see Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. [Board of Educ. of the Buffalo Pub. Schs.], 179 A.D.3d 1553, 1554, 118 N.Y.S.3d 343 [4th Dept. 2020]). Here, the order in appeal No. 1 expired by its own terms on July 20, 2023. Thus, adjudication of the merits with respect to that appeal will not “result in immediate and practical consequences to the parties” (Coleman v. Daines, 19 N.Y.3d 1087, 1090, 955 N.Y.S.2d 831, 979 N.E.2d 1158 [2012]; see Matter of Upstate Univ. Hosp. v. Bryant W., 224 A.D.3d 1340, 1341, 205 N.Y.S.3d 615 [4th Dept. 2024]). Similarly, both appeal No. 1 and appeal No. 2 must be dismissed as moot in light of respondent's discharge from involuntary hospitalization by petitioner (see Matter of Talbot V. [Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr.], 192 A.D.3d 1123, 1124, 141 N.Y.S.3d 365 [2d Dept. 2021], affd 38 N.Y.3d 1128, 172 N.Y.S.3d 660, 192 N.E.3d 1139 [2022]; Matter of Dill v. Michael P., 217 A.D.3d 1431, 1431, 190 N.Y.S.3d 771 [4th Dept. 2023]). In short, these appeals are moot inasmuch as “[r]espondent is no longer aggrieved by [either] order because she is no longer subject to the forcible administration of ․ drugs” by petitioner (Matter of McGrath, 245 A.D.2d 1081, 1082, 667 N.Y.S.2d 550 [4th Dept. 1997]).

Contrary to respondent's contention in both appeals, we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see id.; see generally Hearst Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876).