Matter of Antonio T.

Matter of Antonio T. 2026 NY Slip Op 05542 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Antonio T. (Anonymous), appellant; Rockland Psychiatric Center, respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2025-01063, (Index No. 900371/24) Mark C. Dillon, J.P. Linda Christopher Barry E. Warhit Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ. Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Garden City, NY (Eben Rockwell Hill, Jennifer M. deGroot, and Timothy M. Riselvato of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Philip J. Levitz and Danny Y. Li of counsel), for respondent. [*1] DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the release of Antonio T. from a mental health care facility where he was being involuntarily confined and treated, Antonio T. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas P. Zugibe, J.), dated November 25, 2024. The order, after a hearing, denied Antonio T.'s application to compel his release. ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. Antonio T. (hereinafter the patient) was admitted to Rockland Psychiatric Center (hereinafter the hospital) on November 13, 2024, pursuant to the certificates of two physicians who authorized his involuntary retention pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. Thereafter, 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. In an order dated November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court, after a hearing, denied the patient's application pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31 to compel the hospital to release him from involuntary confinement. The patient appeals. It is undisputed that because the patient has been discharged, this appeal has been rendered academic (see Matter of Yin Z [Hillside Hosp.-Northwell Health], 251 AD3d 719, 719; Matter of Pavel V. [Coney Is. Hosp.], 207 AD3d 551, 551). The patient contends, however, that this Court should apply the exception to the mootness doctrine to reach the questions he presents on this appeal, namely, whether the hospital met its burden of proof to retain him for involuntary psychiatric care and whether the Supreme Court erred in admitting the patient's medical record into evidence. 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 Anonymous v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 70 NY2d 972, 974; Matter of Jonathan S. [Creedmoor Psychiatric Ctr.], 238 AD3d 1155, 1156). DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court