Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Delaney ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                            State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: December 3, 2015                    520485
    ________________________________
    MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE,
    on Behalf of WILLIAM T.,
    Appellant,
    v                                      MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    KERRY A. DELANEY, as Acting
    Commissioner of the Office
    for People with
    Developmental Disabilities,
    et al.,
    Respondents.
    ________________________________
    Calendar Date:    October 16, 2015
    Before:    McCarthy, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ.
    __________
    Sheila E. Shea, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Albany
    (Shannon Stockwell of counsel), for appellant.
    Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Zainab A.
    Chaudhry of counsel), for respondents.
    __________
    Rose, J.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ellis, J.),
    entered November 14, 2014 in Franklin County, which, among other
    things, granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment
    dismissing the complaint.
    William T., a convicted sex offender on probation and with
    a long history of mental illness, resided in facilities operated
    by the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities
    (hereinafter OPWDD). After his probation expired, the Acting
    -2-                520485
    Director of the OPWDD facility where William T. was then a
    resident applied to retain him involuntarily pursuant to Mental
    Hygiene Law § 15.13 (b). Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.) dismissed
    the application and ordered that William T. be released. The
    Acting Director immediately appealed and, relying upon the
    automatic stay provision of CPLR 5519 (a) (1), refused to allow
    William T. to leave the facility. William T. then cross-appealed
    and, on his behalf, plaintiff commenced this separate declaratory
    judgment action challenging the application of the automatic
    stay. When plaintiff moved for summary judgment and permanent
    injunctive relief, defendants cross-moved for summary judgment
    dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court (Ellis, J.) granted
    defendants' cross motion, prompting this appeal by plaintiff.
    The appeal is moot and must be dismissed. During the
    pendency of this appeal, we heard and decided the cross appeals
    of the underlying order in the retention proceeding (Matter of
    William T., 126 AD3d 1108 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]).
    There, based upon our conclusion that the Acting Director proved
    by clear and convincing evidence that William T.'s continued
    involuntary retention at the OPWDD facility was required, we
    reversed the order of Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.) releasing
    William T. (id. at 1110). Since then, William T. has been
    involuntarily retained at the facility by the authority of our
    decision and not by virtue of the automatic stay at issue here.
    Thus, any attempt at this time to determine the propriety of the
    automatic stay on the merits would have no direct impact on the
    rights of the parties (see Coleman v Daines, 19 NY3d 1087, 1090
    [2012]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980];
    Matter of Tompkins County [Tompkins County Deputy Sheriffs'
    Assn., Inc.], 126 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015]).
    Nor does the exception to the mootness doctrine apply.
    While the central issue in this case – i.e., the applicability of
    the automatic stay provision of CPLR 5519 (a) (1) to appeals by
    the state in retention proceedings – might be likely to recur and
    substantial in nature, it is not likely to evade judicial review
    (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715; cf.
    Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. Sch.
    Dist., 107 AD3d 1170, 1171 [2013]; Matter of Patrick BB., 267
    AD2d 853, 854 [1999]; but see Matter of Nile W., 64 AD3d 717, 719
    -3-                  520485
    [2009]). Indeed, if the state appeals the denial of any future
    retention application, William T. may move this Court to vacate,
    limit or modify the automatic stay (see CPLR 5519 [c]). We note
    that such a motion could have been – but was not – made in the
    earlier appeal from the underlying order (see generally Matter of
    William T., 126 AD3d at 1108-1109).
    McCarthy, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
    ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without
    costs.
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 520485

Judges: Rose

Filed Date: 12/3/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2024