IN RE: Leon W. (Anonymous) (2026)

Argued—June 8, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

C/

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33 to retain a patient in a hospital for involuntary psychiatric care for a period not to exceed one year, 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 to the extent of authorizing the petitioner to retain the patient for further care and treatment for a period not to exceed six months.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 8, 2026, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted;  and it is further,

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

In April 2025, the petitioner, Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33 for the involuntary retention of Leon W. (hereinafter the patient) for a period not to exceed one year.  In an order dated June 10, 2025, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, granted the petition to the extent of directing that the patient be retained for a period not to exceed six months.  The patient appeals.

The instant appeal has been rendered academic, as the order authorizing the patient's retention has expired by its terms (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.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court