IN RE: CLARENCE T. (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (John T. Ellis, J.), entered September 29, 2021 in Clinton County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 33, to authorize petitioner to administer psychotropic medications to respondent over his objection.

Respondent is an incarcerated individual presently serving a term of imprisonment at Clinton Correctional Facility for convictions of assault in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree.  Diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar subtype, respondent has a long history of psychiatric hospitalizations beginning when he was a teenager.  On numerous occasions, respondent has refused to take antipsychotic medication and has then become a danger to himself and others.  After expiration of a previous court order authorizing petitioner to treat respondent with antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing drugs over his objection, petitioner commenced this proceeding, seeking to obtain another such order.  In September 2021, following a hearing, Supreme Court granted the petition.  The court's order was set to expire on September 29, 2023 unless petitioner applied for a new order prior to that date, in which case the order would continue until a determination on the new application was rendered.  Respondent appeals.

Inasmuch as petitioner did not seek a new order, and, thus, the subject order expired on September 29, 2023, this appeal is now moot (see Matter of Elijah S., 203 A.D.3d 1482, 1482, 163 N.Y.S.3d 460 [3d Dept. 2022], lv denied 38 N.Y.3d 913, 2022 WL 4137137 [2022];  Matter of Glen T., 163 A.D.3d 1135, 1135, 76 N.Y.S.3d 430 [3d Dept. 2018];  Matter of Bosco [Quinton F.], 100 A.D.3d 1525, 1526, 953 N.Y.S.2d 918 [4th Dept. 2012]).  Further, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (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]).  “Although this type of proceeding often recurs, given the two-year duration of the order, this is not an issue that typically evades review, nor does respondent present a substantial or novel question not previously addressed by this Court” (Matter of Elijah S., 203 A.D.3d at 1482–1483, 163 N.Y.S.3d 460 [internal citations omitted];  see Matter of Glen T., 163 A.D.3d at 1135, 76 N.Y.S.3d 430;  Matter of Russell v. Tripp, 144 A.D.3d 1593, 1594, 40 N.Y.S.3d 308 [4th Dept. 2016]).

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Ceresia, J.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.