New York Court of Appeals, 1997

T.D. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 22, 1997 · Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley Concur

690 N.E.2d 1259; 91 N.Y.2d 860; 668 N.Y.S.2d 153; 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3721 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Matter of Dolomite Prods. Co., Inc. v. Town of Ballston (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Arroyo-Graulau v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Matter of Figaro v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
Clarke v. Town of Newburgh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Harkenrider v. Hochul (N.Y. 2022)
Matter of Roach v. Cornell Univ. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Sky Coverage Inc. v. Alwex Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Sky Coverage Inc. v. Alwex Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Blum v. Pathstone Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of DiNunzio v. Zylinski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Lerner v. New York City Loft Bd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Hampton v. Universal Dental (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
In re Xavier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Gadani v. Debrino Caulking Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
D'Agostino v. DiNapoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Hoover v. DiNapoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Claim of Baker v. Horace Nye Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Sarah A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Ginther v. Ginther (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Guardianship of Chantel Nicole R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Cheng v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed, without costs.

In bringing this action, plaintiffs sought to have declared invalid regulations promulgated by defendant New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH), pertaining to experimental medical research on patients or residents of OMH facilities deemed incapable of giving consent. Plaintiffs have received the complete relief sought in this litigation. A successful party who has obtained the full relief sought is not aggrieved, and therefore has no grounds for appeal (CPLR 5511; Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ., 60 NY2d 539, 544-545; Matter of Bayswater Health Related Facility v Karagheuzoff, 37 NY2d 408, 412-413).

We note moreover that, once the Appellate Division in its decision below had concluded that the challenged regulations were invalid because OMH lacked statutory authority to promulgate them, it was unnecessary under the circumstances here presented to prospectively declare the regulations invalid on additional common-law, statutory, and constitutional grounds. In doing so, the Appellate Division issued an inappropriate advisory opinion (see, Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 *863 NY2d 349; New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey, 42 NY2d 527; Matter of State Indus. Commn., 224 NY 13).

Since plaintiffs are not aggrieved, and defendants have not cross-appealed, the appeal must be dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.