IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.R.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF T.R.

________________________________________________________________

November 2, 2016

Submitted May 17, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. ESCC00106415.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant T.R. (Richard I. Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).

Courtney M. Gaccione, Essex County Counsel, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Thomas M. Bachman, Assistant County Counsel, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ESPINOSA, J.A.D.

T.R. appeals from an order entered on June 24, 2015, that continued his involuntary civil commitment. He argues that the trial court erred by involuntarily detaining him at a locked psychiatric facility and ordering him to be transferred to a long term institution without clear and convincing evidence that he presented a danger to himself, others or property, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.15(a) and N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(m). At a commitment review hearing held approximately one month after the order appealed from, T.R. was found not to be a danger to himself, others or property and his legal status was converted to that of conditional extension pending placement with a review hearing scheduled for approximately one month later.

The County argues this appeal is moot because T.R. is no longer committed pursuant to the June 24 order and because this appeal does not satisfy the criteria for review under such circumstances. T.R. argues his appeal is not moot because it raises issues of important public policy that implicate liberty interests and which issues are capable of repetition yet evading review. See In re Commitment of N.N., 146 N.J. 112, 124 (1996); In re Commitment of M.M., 384 N.J. Super. 313, 322 n.3 (App. Div. 2006). The County contends that, unlike N.N. and In re Commitment of G.G., 272 N.J. Super. 597, 600, n.1 (App. Div. 1994), where the issues were of extreme importance as a matter of public policy, the only issue here is whether the procedure followed in T.R.'s commitment complied with established standards.

An issue is considered "moot when 'the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy.'" State v. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)). "When a party's rights lack concreteness from the outset or lose it by reason of developments subsequent to the filing of suit, the perceived need to test the validity of the underlying claim of right in anticipation of future situations is, by itself, no reason to continue the process." Ibid. (quoting JUA Funding Corp. v. CNA Ins./Cont'l Cas. Co., 322 N.J. Super. 282, 288 (App. Div. 1999)). Occasionally, however, "the courts will consider the merits of an issue notwithstanding its mootness where significant issues of public import appear." Id. at 589.

We agree with the State that the appeal concerns a review of the adequacy of the evidence to support the June 14 order and do not discern any issue of public importance in this matter that would warrant our addressing an issue that can have no practical effect.

Affirmed.