| Matter of Yuri M. (Karpati) |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04810 [107 AD3d 999] |
| June 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Yuri M., Appellant. Adam Karpati,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Leonard Koerner andPaul T. Rephen of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.35 and 9.60 (m)for a rehearing and review of an assisted outpatient treatment order and judgment of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated November 30, 2011, which, upon afinding that Yuri M. was in need of continued assisted outpatient treatment, directed himto comply with a program of assisted outpatient treatment until December 7, 2012, YuriM. appeals from an order of the same court (Bayne, J.), dated June 19, 2012, which, aftera jury trial, directed that the order dated November 30, 2011, remain in full force andeffect.
Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.
On June 7, 2011, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the appellant Yuri M.to receive assisted outpatient treatment (hereinafter AOT), pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw § 9.60, for a period of six months. Prior to the expiration of that order,following a hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order and judgment, dated November30, 2011, granting the petition of physician Adam Karpati to continue AOT for Yuri M.for one additional year, that is, until December 7, 2012.
On December 29, 2011, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.35 and9.60 (m), Yuri M. petitioned for a rehearing and review by a jury of the order datedNovember 30, 2011. The jury found that Yuri M. was in need of continued AOT. In anorder dated June 19, 2012, the Supreme Court found that Yuri M. should remain subjectto the AOT order, dated November 30, 2011.
"Under the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded from considering questionswhich, 'although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change incircumstances' when the rights of the parties with respect to the controversy will nolonger be 'directly affected by the determination of the appeal' " (Matter of Field v Stamile, 85AD3d 1164, 1164-1165 [2011], quoting Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). "[A]n exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts topreserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relativelybrief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable" (Matter of Gail R. [Barron], 67AD3d 808, 810 [2009]).[*2]
Here, the AOT order, dated November 30, 2011,expired by its own terms on December 7, 2012. As a result, Yuri M.'s appeal from theorder dated June 19, 2012, which sought the review of the AOT order, was renderedmoot. Contrary to the appellant's contentions, this matter does not warrant the invocationof the exception to the mootness doctrine (see e.g. Matter of Fredericks v Ambrose, 100 AD3d 632,633 [2012]; Field v Stamile, 85 AD3d at 1165).
Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as academic. Dillon, J.P., Chambers,Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.