PEOPLE EX REL NEVILLE v. LINDER (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lumarie Maldonado–Cruz, J.), dated October 10, 2023.  The judgment, after a hearing, granted the petition and directed that Tanai B. be released.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

In October 2023, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, following the involuntary admission of Tanai B. to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Zucker Hillside Hospital (hereinafter the hospital) purportedly pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. After a hearing, the Supreme Court granted the petition and directed that Tanai B. be released from the hospital.  This appeal ensued.

“As a general principle, courts are precluded from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” (City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d 499, 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “Typically, 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” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Matter of Ferrera v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 230 A.D.3d 772, 774, 218 N.Y.S.3d 402).

However, “an exception to the mootness doctrine” permits “judicial review, where the issues are substantial or novel, likely to recur and capable of evading review” (City of New York v. Maul, 14 N.Y.3d at 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366).  “The exception to the mootness doctrine requires the existence of three common factors:  (1) a likelihood that the issue will repeat, either between the same parties or other members of the public;  (2) an issue or phenomenon typically evading appellate review;  and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed upon” (C.F. v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 A.D.3d 52, 61, 139 N.Y.S.3d 273).

Here, under the circumstances, Tanai B.'s actual release from involuntary commitment at the hospital renders this appeal academic (see Matter of Anonymous v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 972, 974, 525 N.Y.S.2d 796, 520 N.E.2d 515;  Matter of Anthony v. Jerry V., 179 A.D.3d 456, 113 N.Y.S.3d 537).  Contrary to the appellant's contention, the issues pertaining to Tanai B.'s involuntary commitment are not a phenomenon typically evading review, and therefore the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Matter of Anonymous v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 70 N.Y.2d at 974, 525 N.Y.S.2d 796, 520 N.E.2d 515;  Matter of Pavel V. [Coney Is. Hosp.], 207 A.D.3d 551, 552, 169 N.Y.S.3d 827).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.