In re Krawec

• Decision Date: 31 March 2022
• Docket Number: 530928
• Citation: 2022 NY Slip Op 02162
• Parties: In the Matter of Elijah S. Victor Krawec, as Forensic Unit Chief of Central New York Psychiatric Facility, Respondent; Elijah S., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2022 NY Slip Op 02162

In the Matter of Elijah S. Victor Krawec, as Forensic Unit Chief of Central New York Psychiatric Facility, Respondent; Elijah S., Appellant.

No. 530928

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

March 31, 2022

Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Colangelo and McShan JJ.

Colangelo, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered January 24, 2020 in Sullivan County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 33, to authorize petitioner to administer antipsychotic medication to respondent over his objection.

Respondent is an incarcerated individual presently serving time at the Sullivan Correctional Facility upon two separate convictions of assault in the second degree. Having been diagnosed with schizophrenia prior to his current incarceration, respondent has been court ordered to take antipsychotic medication over his objection on two previous occasions. In July 2019, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 33 seeking to medicate respondent over his objection. A hearing was held and, thereafter, Supreme Court granted the petition authorizing certain medications to be administered to respondent over his objection. By the terms of this order, entered on January 23, 2020, such authorization continued "for a period of two years." Respondent appeals.

As respondent concedes, the order expired by its own terms in January 2022; thus, the instant appeal is moot (see Matter of Glen T., 163 A.D.3d 1135, 1135 [2018]; Matter of McCulloch v Melvin H., 156 A.D.3d 1480 1481 [2017], appeal dismissed 31 N.Y.3d 927 [2017], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 902 [2018]). Respondent argues, however, that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies here. The exception to the mootness doctrine applies where there is "(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues" (Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; see Matter of Lucas QQ. [Rahman], 146 A.D.3d 92, 95 [2016]). Although this type of proceeding often recurs (see e.g. Rivers v Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 495 [1986]; Matter of Lucas QQ. [Rahman], 146 A.D.3d at 95), given the two-year duration of the order, this is not an issue that typically evades review, nor does respondent present a substantial or novel question not previously addressed by this...