Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(the appeal is no longer valid)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Matter of Santopietro v. Shy Kym S.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
625 CA 25-00770
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05647
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 4, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court: granted petitioner's application to authorize the administration of medication to respondent.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (the appeal is no longer valid)

TL;DR

  1. 1A man challenged a hospital's plan to give him medication without his permission.
  2. 2The court his appeal because the order was no longer valid.
  3. 3This decision highlights the limits on treatment decisions when time has lapsed.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Did the court have the right to order medication against the man's wishes?

    Holding · The court found the appeal moot since the order allowing medication had expired.

Why it matters

This case impacts how mental health treatment decisions are made when patients refuse medication.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

A man fights against getting hospital medication without his consent.

  1. 1A mental health facility wanted to give medication to a man against his wishes.
  2. 2The man argued he should have a say in his treatment.
  3. 3The court had to decide if the hospital could proceed with the medication despite his objections.

Should a court allow a hospital to give a patient medication against his will?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Matter of Santopietro

  • Appellee

    Shy Kym S.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Matter of Santopietro v Shy Kym S. 2026 NY Slip Op 05647 October 2, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 CARRIE SANTOPIETRO, UNIT CHIEF OF CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER MARCY RMHU SATELLITE UNIT, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v SHY KYM S., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 625 CA 25-00770 Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Ogden, Delconte, And Skinner, JJ. FRANK S. PAPPALARDO, ACTING DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE (NATHANIEL V. RILEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (RACHEL RAIMONDI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Charles C. Merrell, J.), entered April 4, 2025, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.03. The order, inter alia, granted petitioner's application to authorize the administration of medication to respondent. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner's application for authorization to administer medication to respondent over his objection. The order has since expired, rendering this appeal moot (see Matter of Blossom V. [Reddy], 230 AD3d 1552, 1552-1553 [4th Dept 2024]; Matter of Upstate Univ. Hosp. v Bryant W., 224 AD3d 1340, 1341 [4th Dept 2024]) and, contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that this case does not fall within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of McGrath, 245 AD2d 1081, 1082 [4th Dept 1997]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener