IN RE: YIN Z. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the release of Yin Z. from a mental health care facility where she was being involuntarily confined and treated, Yin Z. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Andrea S. Ogle, J.), dated August 5, 2025.  The order, after a hearing, denied Yin Z.'s application to compel her release.

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

Yin Z. (hereinafter the patient) was admitted to Hillside Hospital–Northwell Health (hereinafter the hospital) on July 22, 2025, pursuant to certificates of two physicians who authorized her involuntary retention pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. On July 29, 2025, the patient made an application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 for a hearing on the question of the need for involuntary care and treatment.

By order dated August 5, 2025, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, denied the patient's application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the hospital to release her from involuntary confinement.  The patient appeals.

As the patient concedes, this appeal has been rendered academic by the patient's discharge from the hospital (see Matter of Pavel V. [Coney Is. Hosp.], 207 AD3d 551, 551;  Matter of G., Cynthia [Kings County Hosp.], 188 AD3d 881, 882).  The patient contends, however, that this Court should apply the exception to the mootness doctrine to reach her unpreserved contention that she was deprived of a fair hearing by the Supreme Court's questioning of witnesses (see generally People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 58;  People v. Morales, 246 AD3d 941, 942).

The exception to the mootness doctrine permits an appellate court, in its discretion, to consider the merits of an academic appeal where “the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question” (Matter of Joshua J. [Tameka J.], 44 NY3d 394, 402 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  Here, contrary to the patient's contention, this matter does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Jonathan S. [Creedmoor Psychiatric Ctr.], 238 AD3d 1155, 1156;  Matter of Daniel C. [South Beach Psychiatric Ctr.], 207 AD3d 539, 540).

CHAMBERS, J.P., WARHIT, LOVE and QUIRK, JJ., concur.