mootness doctrine in New York

2026Although petitioner requests that we nonetheless review the matter, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).

2026Nonetheless, defendant's challenge to the legality of the minimum period of the indeterminate sentence was rendered moot by his release to parole supervision ( see Balkum , 288 AD2d at 910 ), and we conclude that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Smith , 237 AD3d at 1532; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2025To the extent petitioners' challenge implicates Education Law § 3204's substantial equivalency pathways, the amendment renders any such challenge moot and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d 801, 811 [2003]). [FN5] That leaves petitioners' challenge to the regulations.

2025To the extent petitioners' challenge implicates Education Law § 3204's substantial equivalency pathways, the amendment renders any such challenge moot and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies ( see Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki , 100 NY2d 801, 811 [2003]). [FN5] That leaves petitioners' challenge to the regulations.

2026"Thus, pursuant to the mootness doctrine, courts are precluded 'from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances'" ( Kennedy v Suffolk County , 211 AD3d 926 , 928, quoting City of New York v Maul , 14 NY3d 499, 507 ; see Matter of Cody v Verivakis , 236 AD3d 783 ).

2026Consequently, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply and this appeal must be dismissed ( see Matter of Hoyt v Figueroa , 246 AD3d 1172, 1174 [3d Dept 2026]; Matter of Elizabeth LL. [Thomas OO.] , 174 AD3d 1094, 1096 [3d Dept 2019]; see generally City of New York v Maul , 14 NY3d 499, 507 [2010]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2025Nevertheless, we review this appeal, under the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), because it is likely to recur for other youths in Close to Home placements ( see Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Ford , 92 NY2d 500, 505 [1998]).

2025Nevertheless, we review this appeal, under the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]), because it is likely to recur for other youths in Close to Home placements ( see Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Ford , 92 NY2d 500, 505 [1998]).

2026Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here. "'An exception to the mootness doctrine may apply . . . where the issue to be decided, though moot, (1) is likely to recur, either between the parties or other members of the public, (2) is substantial and novel, and (3) will typically evade review in the courts'" ( Matter of Marxuach v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision , 214 AD3d 873, 874 , quoting Coleman v Daines , 19 NY3d 1087, 1090 ).

2025"An exception to the mootness doctrine may apply, however, where the issue to be decided, though moot, (1) is likely to recur, either between the parties or other members of the public, (2) is substantial and novel, and (3) will typically evade review in the courts" ( Coleman v Daines , 19 NY3d at 1090 ).

2025Hosp. v Bryant W. , 224 AD3d 1340 , 1341 [4th Dept 2024]), and 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]).

2025Hosp. v Bryant W. , 224 AD3d 1340 , 1341 [4th Dept 2024]), and 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]).

2022“Nevertheless, we have consistently applied an exception to the mootness doctrine, permitting judicial review, where the issues are substantial or novel, likely to recur and capable of evading review” (Maul, 14 NY3d at 507 ; see also Chenier v Richard W., 82 NY2d 830, 832 [1993] [holding that an “appeal should be retained (when) it satisfies the three critical conditions to the mootness exception”]).

2022“Nevertheless, we have consistently applied an exception to the mootness doctrine, permitting judicial review, where the issues are substantial or novel, likely to recur and capable of evading review” (Maul, 14 NY3d at 507 ; see also Chenier v Richard W., 82 NY2d 830, 832 [1993] [holding that an “appeal should be retained (when) it satisfies the three critical conditions to the mootness exception”]).

2022Although petitioner has already received its requested relief, we find, under the circumstances of this case, that petitioner's appeal — directed at the scope and authority of Family Court to find a child in a direct placement to be under the "care [*2]of an authorized agency" within the context of a permanent neglect proceeding — "raise[s] a substantial and novel issue that is likely to recur, yet evade review, and that, therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine applies" ( Matter of Carmine GG. [Christopher HH.] , 174 AD3d 999 , 1000 [2019]; see Matter of M.B. , 6 NY3d 437, 447 [2006]

2021However, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine exists because the issue presented is substantial, likely to recur and involves a situation capable of evading review, as tenants will likely be evicted before appeals can be heard ( see Matter of M.B. , 6 NY3d 437, 447 [2006]; Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Delaney , 176 AD3d 24 , 30 [2019], lv granted 35 NY3d 912 [2020]; Matter of Police Benevolent Assn. of N.Y., Inc. v State of New York , 161 AD3d 1430 , 1431 [2018]). [FN2] Respondents contend that proper service of the warrant of eviction does not require the filing [*2]o

2015Assuming, as the State contends, that the matter was rendered moot, because the limited issue of whether a trial court has the authority to permit an electronic appearance during the dispositional phase of a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding is a significant issue which is likely to recur and evade review, the exception to the mootness doctrine would apply (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; cf Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798 [1987]). .

2013The order has expired by its own terms and was superseded by an order subsequently entered, and the issues raised are not sufficiently substantial or novel to warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of David C., 69 NY2d 796, 798 [1987]; Matter of Zheng Z. [South Beach Psychiatric Ctr.], 68 AD3d 886, 887 [2009]).

2025Although this appeal is moot because petitioner has been released from the custody of respondent New York City Police Department (NYPD), this case warrants an exception to the mootness doctrine because it presents a controversy that is "likely to be repeated, typically evades review, and raises substantial and novel questions" ( Wisholek v Douglas , 97 NY2d 740, 742 [2002]).

2023Furthermore, the "narrow exception" to the mootness doctrine — that is, the exception that gives us the discretion to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question — does not apply here ( see Wisholek v Douglas , 97 NY2d 740, 742 [2002]; Matter of Santiago v Berlin , 111 AD3d 487, 487 [1st Dept 2013]).

2016Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 94 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Reynolds, 103 AD3d at 1209 ; Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2016Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections, 94 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 807 [2012]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (see Reynolds, 103 AD3d at 1209 ; Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2025Generally, the doctrine of mootness applies "where a change in circumstances prevents a court from rendering a decision that would effectively determine an actual controversy" ( Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach , 98 NY2d 165, 172 ; see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv.

2023The mootness doctrine will deprive a court of the ability to review a case where a change in circumstances between the parties has eliminated the controversy that once existed ( Matter of Dreikausen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach , 98 NY2d 165, 172 [2002]).

2018Although respondent urges us to reach the merits of her appeal in order to provide guidance on temporary removal standards, arguing that issues related thereto frequently recur and evade review, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O. , 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).

2013Accordingly, the challenges to the granting of the extension raised on this appeal are now moot and we are not persuaded that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable here (see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.], 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O., 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]).

2020Moreover, contrary to respondent's assertion, his remaining contentions do not raise substantial or novel issues that are likely to recur or evade review and, therefore, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Stephen RR. [Christa TT.] , 169 AD3d 1190 , 1191 [2019]; Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).

2018Although respondent urges us to reach the merits of her appeal in order to provide guidance on temporary removal standards, arguing that issues related thereto frequently recur and evade review, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see Matter of Michael A. [Patricia A.] , 79 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2010]; Matter of Brenden O. , 13 AD3d 779, 780 [2004]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]).

2019Insofar as the issue is a substantial and novel one, will recur if Mercer successfully challenges his conviction and secures a new trial, and cannot be reviewed on a direct appeal by petitioner, we find that this case falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Schermerhorn v Becker , 64 AD3d 843, 845 [2009]; see also CPL 450.20; compare People v Felli , 172 AD3d 1652 , 1654 [2019]).

2017The exception to the mootness doctrine permits judicial review of novel or substantial issues that are otherwise moot, but are likely to recur and capable of evading review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Schermerhorn v Becker, 64 AD3d 843, 845 [2009]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 , 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).

2013Contrary to petitioner’s claim, we do not find the exception to the mootness doctrine applicable here (see Matter of Marcelin v Evans, 86 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Bd. of Parole, 76 AD3d 1167 , 1167 [2010], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 773 [2011]).

2025Commn. , 2 NY3d 727, 728-729 ).

2022Finally, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here ( see Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill , 2 NY3d at 730 ).

2026Contrary to appellant's contentions, we find no exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A. , 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2026Contrary to appellant's contentions, we find no exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Veronica P. v Radcliff A. , 24 NY3d 668, 671 [2015]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

2018This case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ; Matter of Field v Stamile, 85 AD3d 1164, 1165 ).

2016Contrary to the mother’s contention, this case does not warrant invoking the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Stacey O. [Bernadette F.], 133 AD3d 665 [2015]; Matter of Field v Stamile, *743 85 AD3d 1164 [2011]).

2022However, because we find the circumstances presented here — where petitioner was retained at a maximum security facility past his maximum expiration date solely due to his physical disability — presents an issue which is significant, will typically evade appellate review, and is likely to recur, we find that the exception to the mootness doctrine applies ( see Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci , 32 NY3d 461, 470 [2018]; People ex rel.

2022Further, we do not find that this matter falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; cf. Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci , 32 NY3d 461, 470 [2018]).

2020"However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief [*2]existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable" ( Matter of Gail R. [Barron] , 67 AD3d 808, 810 ).

2014“However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable” (Matter of Gail R. [Barron], 67 AD3d 808, 810 [2009]).

2017Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, this case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 NY2d 307, 311 [1988]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Richmond County Dist.

2017Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, this case does not warrant the invocation of the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., AFL-CIO, 72 NY2d 307, 311 [1988]; Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Richmond County Dist.

2014Graham v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1381, 1381-1382 [2010]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410 ; Graham, 70 AD3d at 1381-1382 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2014Graham v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1381, 1381-1382 [2010]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (see Baron, 94 AD3d at 1410 ; Graham, 70 AD3d at 1381-1382 ; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2017Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2013]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2017Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply here (see Matter of Sanchez v Evans, 111 AD3d 1315, 1315 [2013]; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).

2025Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Doe for failure to provide an offering plan and failure to be incorporated “The mootness doctrine precludes courts from considering questions which, although once active, have become academic by the passage of time or by a change in circumstances.” In re Melinda D., 31 A.D.3d 24 (2d Dept. 2006).

2024The respondents/defendants appeal. "'The mootness doctrine precludes courts from considering questions which, although once active, have become academic by the passage of time or by a change in circumstances'" ( Matter of Alvarez v Annucci , 186 AD3d 704, 705 , affd 38 NY3d 974 , quoting Matter of Melinda D. , 31 AD3d 24, 28 ).

2013Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 [1975]; Matter of Concord Realty Co. v City of New York, 30 NY2d 308, 312-313 [1972]).

2013Thus, it presents an exception to the mootness doctrine (see generally Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 [1975]; Matter of Concord Realty Co. v City of New York, 30 NY2d 308, 312-313 [1972]).