IN RE: LEON W. (Anonymous) (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.03 for permission to administer a course of medical treatment to a patient without his consent, the patient appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Andrea S. Ogle, J.), dated June 10, 2025.  The order, after a hearing, granted the petition for the duration of the patient's continuous confinement upon his current admission.

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

The petitioner, Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.03 for permission to administer antipsychotic and other medications to Leon W. (hereinafter the patient), over his objection.  After a hearing, the Supreme Court granted the petition for the duration of the patient's continuous confinement upon his current admission.  The patient appeals.

As the patient concedes, since the patient's involuntary confinement under the corresponding retention order has expired (see Matter of Leon W., ––– AD3d –––– [Appellate Division Docket No. 2025–12229;  decided herewith] ), this appeal is academic (see Matter of Raymond E. [South Beach Psychiatric Ctr.], 242 AD3d 68, 70;  Matter of Talbot V. [Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr.], 192 AD3d 1123, 1124).  The patient contends, however, that this Court should apply the exception to the mootness doctrine to reach his unpreserved contention that he 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.