McMahon v. Landon

Summary

The New York Appellate Division considered an appeal from an order compelling correction officers to comply with subpoenas issued by the State Commission of Correction during an investigation of a prison hostage incident. Because the respondents had already testified, the court dismissed the appeal as moot and held that the controversy did not qualify for an exception to the mootness doctrine.

Holdings

1. The appeal was moot because respondents had already testified pursuant to Supreme Court's order and their rights could not be affected by a determination on the appeal.
2. The appeal did not qualify for the exception to the mootness doctrine because, although the issue might recur, it would not typically evade judicial review and the case presented no substantial or novel question.
3. Miranda v. Arizona did not undermine the prior holdings concerning the absence of a right to have counsel present during the Commission's investigatory questioning.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal from the order compelling respondents to comply with the Commission's subpoenas was moot after respondents testified pursuant to the order.
2. Whether the exception to the mootness doctrine applied because the issue of counsel's presence during investigatory administrative questioning was likely to recur.
3. Whether Miranda v. Arizona altered the prior rule concerning counsel's presence during an investigatory administrative proceeding.

Disposition

dismissed