The opinion
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3469-23
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMITMENT OF L.J. 1
_______________________
Submitted June 3, 2025 – Decided June 18, 2025
Before Judges Firko and Augostini.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. ESCC-001148-24.
Jennifer N. Sellitti, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant L.J. (Thomas G. Hand, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, on the brief).
Jerome M. St. John, Essex County Counsel, attorney for
respondent State of New Jersey, County of Essex
(Thomas M. Bachman, Assistant Essex County
Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
L.J., an adult male, appeals from a June 5, 2024 order involuntarily
committing him to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center (Beth Israel). Although
1
We use initials to identify appellant because records of civil commitment
proceedings are excluded from public access under Rule 1:38-3(f)(2).
L.J. has been discharged from Beth Israel, he seeks reversal of the order and
removal of the involuntary commitment from his record. We affirm.
I.
We discern the salient facts from the record. On May 22, 2024, L.J. was
transported to Beth Israel for an involuntary screening after he was found
wandering while exhibiting disorganized and paranoid behavior. 2
At the June 5, 2024 hearing, Dr. Samuel Sostre,3 L.J.'s treating
psychiatrist, testified he diagnosed L.J. with schizophrenia based upon his
examination.4 Dr. Sostre explained that L.J.'s symptoms show that he "remains
2
L.J.'s medical records from Beth Israel are not contained in the record.
3
Dr. Sostre's last name is incorrectly spelled as "Dr. Salters" in the June 5, 2024
hearing transcript and in appellant's merits brief.
4
According to DSM-V,
The characteristic symptoms of schizophrenia involve
a range of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional
dysfunctions, but no single symptom is pathognomonic
of the disorder. The diagnosis involves the recognition
of a constellation of signs and symptoms associated
with impaired occupational or social functioning.
Individuals with the disorder will vary substantially on
most features, as schizophrenia is a heterogeneous
clinical syndrome.
A-3469-23
2
paranoid, guarded, irritable, and appears to be internally preoccupied." Dr.
Sostre testified L.J.'s "judgment would be considered . . . poor . . . despite being
compliant with his medications." Dr. Sostre opined that "[d]espite being
verbally irritable at times, [L.J.] has exhibited no aggravated or threatening
behaviors." Dr. Sostre stated that L.J. was currently being treated with
Risperdal.5
[Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. text rev. DSM-5-
TR 2022) and (5th ed. DSM-5 2013), Section II
Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders
(enumerating diagnostic features of schizophrenia).]
5
Risperdal is the brand name for Risperidone. The Cleveland Clinic states that
Risperidone:
treats schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism
spectrum disorder. It works by balancing the levels of
dopamine and serotonin in your brain, substances that
help regulate mood, behaviors, and thoughts. It belongs
to a group of medications called antipsychotics.
Antipsychotic medications can be used to treat several
kinds of mental health conditions.
[Drugs, Devices & Supplements: Risperidone Tablets,
Cleveland Clinic (2025),
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/20391-
risperidone-tablets.]
A-3469-23
3
Based on his examination, Dr. Sostre concluded, to a degree of medical
certainty, that L.J. suffered from mental illness, was currently unable to care for
himself, and was unable to maintain a safe living environment. Dr. Sostre
testified that L.J. was currently unable to provide his mother's address or her
phone number. Dr. Sostre opined that it was not possible for L.J. to be in a less
restrictive environment than a psychiatric hospital at the time of the hearing.
Dr. Sostre recommended L.J.'s "continued commitment with a possible transfer
to long-term care with a [four]-week review."
L.J.'s attorney did not cross-examine Dr. Sostre. L.J. testified on his own
behalf with the aid of a French interpreter as follows:
I heard what the doctor said. He said that I suffer from
paranoia. He said that I am schizophrenia [sic]. I will
not say that. That—that's the first time in my life that
I've heard that I have those issues. I would like—I
would like the doctor to explain to me when a person is
paranoid, when person suffer from schizophrenia.
Then, I will know if I am paranoid if I suffer from
schizophrenia.
And I give my mother's name. I give my address.
The only thing I did not give, the phone number of my
relatives, because I do not know the phone number on
top of my head. He said that I cannot leave in a—
environment. As a human being, everything that is—
everything that is existing, everything that is fair,
everybody—everybody, every human being should
be—to live in a safe environment. That's all I wanted
to say.
A-3469-23
4
L.J. did not present any fact or expert witnesses to testify on his behalf.
Each counsel gave a closing statement. L.J.'s counsel argued it would be
"incredibly unfair" for L.J. to remain hospitalized merely because he may not
have a "safe place" to stay outside of the hospital. L.J.'s counsel also requested
the judge issue an order of conditional extension pending placement (CEPP) 6 in
accordance with Rule 4:74-4(h)(2)7 if the judge was not inclined to discharge
L.J. from Beth Israel.
6
CEPP status applies to "individuals who are legally entitled to leave a mental
hospital because they are not considered dangerous" but "'are incapable of
competently exercising' the right to be discharged because of a diminished
capacity to survive in the outside world." In re Commitment of M.G., 331 N.J.
Super. 365, 378 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting In re Commitment of S.L., 94 N.J.
128, 139 (1983)). Such individuals remain confined until the State arranges for
appropriate placement. Ibid.; see also R. 4:74-7(h)(2).
7
Rule 4:74-7(h)(2) defines an order of CEPP as:
If a patient otherwise entitled to discharge from an
inpatient facility cannot be immediately discharged due
to the unavailability of an appropriate placement, the
court shall enter an order conditionally extending the
patient's hospitalization and scheduling a placement
review hearing within [sixty] days thereafter. If the
patient is not sooner discharged, a second placement
review hearing shall be held no later than six months
after the initial placement review hearing and
subsequently at no greater than six-month intervals. At
all placement review hearings the court shall inquire
A-3469-23
5
After both sides rested, the judge questioned the social worker who was
present in the courtroom if she had any contact with L.J.'s family, and she
answered in the negative. The social worker was not sworn in. The social
worker told the judge that L.J. has always provided his address, but it was unable
to be confirmed, and he did not provide any phone numbers. The judge gave the
attorneys the opportunity to question the social worker. L.J.'s counsel did briefly
question the social worker with regard to CEPP. The social worker responded,
"[y]es. That is something [L.J.] can do."
into and receive evidence of the patient's placement as
is necessary to support the entry of an order
conditionally extending the patient's hospitalization.
At all placement review hearings, the hospital
employee who has primary responsibility for placing
the patient shall prepare a written report and shall make
it available to the court and all counsel no later than one
business day prior to the hearing. The report shall be
in a form prescribed by the Department of Human
Services and subject to approval by the Administrative
Director of the Courts, and designed to minimize the
burden on hospital administrative and clinical resources
while still accomplishing its objective. If the court is
advised at a hearing that an appropriate placement is
available, it shall forthwith order such placement. If an
appropriate placement becomes available during the
interval between scheduled hearings, the patient may be
administratively discharged to said placement.
A-3469-23
6
Based on the record, the judge found by clear and convincing evidence
that L.J. suffers from a mental illness. In his oral decision, the judge found Dr.
Sostre was "convincing" and "credible." The judge also found the social worker
was "credible." The judge determined there was insufficient information
provided about L.J.'s family or "where he's going to end up" to justify CEPP.
The judge continued L.J.'s commitment and scheduled a four-week review
for July 3, 2024. The judge also ruled that L.J. can be "discharged at any point
that the doctor thinks is appropriate." A memorializing order was entered, which
noted the judge found L.J. was "[w]andering streets," unaware of prior hospital
stays, "[r]emains guarded, paranoid, and internally preoccupied." The order
noted L.J. is "psychotic," has poor judgment, is compliant with his medication,
has good impulse control, "[s]till a danger to self," and no less restrictive setting
is appropriate. On July 3, 2024, L.J. was discharged from Beth Israel, with no
further details appearing in the record. This appeal followed.
L.J. presents three issues for our consideration:
(1) the judge erred as a matter of law when he
ordered L.J.'s commitment because the State
failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that L.J. was unable to care for himself as
required by N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.15 and 30:4-
27.2(m);
A-3469-23
7
(2) L.J. was deprived of his due process rights when
the judge impermissibly advanced the State's
case by obtaining additional testimony from an
unidentified and unsworn social worker after
closing arguments; and
(3) the judge erred in finding L.J. required continued
commitment, failed to make any findings of fact,
relied on unsworn witness testimony, and relied
on the absence of evidence to support the State's
case for involuntary civil commitment.
The State counters L.J.'s appeal should be dismissed as moot because L.J. was
discharged on July 3, 2024, and this case implicates no new issue of law and
only concerns the sufficiency of the evidence.
II.
Our review of a judge's determination to commit an individual is
"extremely narrow," In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58 (1996), and it may only be
modified where "the record reveals a clear mistake," In re Civ. Commitment of
R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 175 (2014). A judge's determination should not be disturbed
if the judge's findings are "supported by 'sufficient credible evidence present in
the record.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)).
We review a decision continuing an individual's civil commitment for an
abuse of discretion. D.C., 146 N.J. at 58-59. We "reverse[] only when there is
clear error or mistake." In re Commitment of M.M., 384 N.J. Super. 313, 334
A-3469-23
8
(App. Div. 2006) (citations omitted). The trial judges who hear these cases
"generally are 'specialists' and 'their expertise in the subject' is entitled to 'special
deference.'" R.F., 217 N.J. at 174 (quoting In re Civ. Commitment of T.J.N.,
390 N.J. Super. 218, 226 (App. Div. 2007)). However, we "must consider the
adequacy of the evidence." M.M., 384 N.J. Super. at 334 (citations omitted).
And, to the extent questions presented are procedural or legal ones, our review
is de novo. In re Commitment of J.L.J., 196 N.J. Super. 34, 49 (App. Div. 1984)
(citing State v. Steele, 92 N.J. Super. 498, 507 (App. Div. 1966)).
"Involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is state action which
deprives the committee of important liberty interests and, as such, triggers
significant due process requirements." In re Commitment of Raymond S., 263
N.J. Super. 428, 431 (App. Div. 1993) (citation omitted). As a result, our
Legislature and Supreme Court have promulgated N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.1 to -27.23
and Rule 4:74-7 "to ensure that no person is involuntarily committed to a
psychiatric institution without having been afforded procedural and substantive
due process." Ibid.
An adult is considered "in need of involuntary treatment" if they are
an adult with mental illness, whose mental illness
causes the person to be dangerous to self or dangerous
to others or property and who is unwilling to accept
appropriate treatment voluntarily after it has been
A-3469-23
9
offered, needs outpatient treatment or inpatient care at
a short-term care or psychiatric facility or special
psychiatric hospital because other services are not
appropriate or available to meet the person's mental
health care needs.
[N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(m); see R. 4:74-7(f)(1).]
"Mental illness" is defined as "a current, substantial disturbance of
thought, mood, perception, or orientation which significantly impairs judgment,
capacity to control behavior, or capacity to recognize reality," not including
"simple alcohol intoxication, transitory reaction to drug ingestion, organic brain
syndrome, or developmental disability" unless that disability results in the
severity of impairment described in the statute. N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(r).
A judge may not commit a person to a psychiatric facility "without proof
by clear and convincing evidence that the individual has a mental illness, and
the mental illness causes the patient to be dangerous to self, to others, or to
property." Raymond S., 263 N.J. Super. at 431 (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.9(b);
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.15(a); R. 4:74-7(f)). Clear and convincing evidence "should
produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth
of the allegations sought to be established." In re Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240
(1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J. Super. 156, 162 (App. Div.
1960)).
A-3469-23
10
If a judge "finds that there is probable cause to believe that [a] person . . .
is in need of involuntary commitment to treatment," the judge "shall issue a
temporary order authorizing the assignment of the person to an outpatient
treatment provider or the admission to or retention of the person in the custody
of the facility." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.10(g); see R. 4:74-7(c). Commitment must be
"both appropriate to the person's condition and . . . the least restrictive
environment, pending a final hearing." N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.10(g); see R. 4:74-7(c).
A.
We first address the State's mootness argument. "Mootness is a threshold
justiciability determination rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be
exercised only when a party is immediately threatened with harm." Betancourt
v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010). "An issue is 'moot
when our decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical
effect on the existing controversy.'" Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015)
(quoting Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22
(App. Div. 2011)). "Ordinarily, our interest in preserving judicial resources
dictates that we not attempt to resolve legal issues in the abstract." Zirger v.
Gen. Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327, 330 (1996).
A-3469-23
11
Our courts generally consider appeals challenging civil commitment even
after the appellant's release has mooted relief because of the importance of the
individual's liberty interest and the likelihood of repetition of error that will
escape review. See In re Commitment of N.N., 146 N.J. 112, 124 (1996); see
also In re Commitment of P.D., 381 N.J. Super. 389, 391-92 (App Div. 2005),
certif. granted and remanded, 186 N.J. 251 (2006). We reject the State's
argument that L.J.'s appeal should be dismissed as moot.
B.
We next address L.J.'s argument that the State failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that he was unable to care for himself. L.J. contends Dr.
Sostre's opinion that L.J. was a danger to himself constituted a net opinion and
lacked the requisite basis in fact required by N.J.R.E. 703. According to L.J.,
Dr. Sostre only testified L.J. was paranoid, had poor judgment, and poor insight,
but did not opine that L.J. was unable to satisfy his need for "nourishment" as
required by N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h).
L.J. also contends Dr. Sostre did not opine that he was unable to satisfy
his need for essential medical care as required by N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h). L.J.
asserts his failure to provide an address does not "equate" to the failure to
provide shelter under N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h), and Dr. Sostre failed to explain how
A-3469-23
12
L.J.'s inability to care for himself created a risk that it was "probable that
substantial bodily injury, serious physical harm, or death will result within the
reasonably foreseeable future" as defined by the statute.
L.J. was committed to Beth Israel after he was found wandering. He
presented as paranoid, guarded, irritable, and internally preoccupied. Dr. Sostre
diagnosed L.J. with schizophrenia, after observing and treating L.J. during a
two-week hospital stay. L.J. does not challenge that diagnosis on appeal.
Moreover, Dr. Sostre's testimony and opinions were not subject to cross -
examination and are therefore unrefuted. Thus, the judge's finding that L.J.
suffered from a mental illness pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(r) is based upon
substantial credible evidence in the record. L.J.'s condition required medication
for his acute symptoms. Until stabilized, L.J. was a danger to himself and others.
We recognize a mere possibility of danger is not enough to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 4:74-7(f). See In re Commitment of W.H., 324 N.J. Super.
519, 523 (App. Div. 1999). In W.H., the doctor opined the patient would
"possibly" be a danger to himself or others if he were to stop taking his
medication. Ibid. The doctor also testified the patient had a history of violence
but did not present any facts to support that conclusion. Id. at 524. According
to witnesses the trial judge found credible, the patient had never been violent,
A-3469-23
13
even when he was not taking his medication. Ibid. We reversed the trial court's
order continuing his commitment, holding the mere possibility of danger with
nothing more does not rise to the level of clear and convincing. Ibid.
Here, in contrast, Dr. Sostre did not testify L.J. would "possibly" be a
danger to himself and others if he was discharged; rather, Dr. Sostre testified he
would, in fact, be a danger if he was discharged. In determining whether a
patient poses a danger to oneself, a judge shall consider "a person's history,
recent behavior, and any recent act, threat, or serious psychiatric deterioration."
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h). The judge's determination that the State proved by clear
and convincing evidence that L.J. had a mental illness and posed a danger to
himself is supported by sufficient credible evidence. We discern no error.
C.
We are unconvinced that Dr. Sostre's testimony constituted a "net
opinion" as it was predicated on his own personal observations and examinations
of L.J. over a two-week period and was permissible under N.J.R.E. 703. 8 The
8
N.J.R.E. 703 sets forth that
[t]he facts or data in the particular case upon which an
expert bases an opinion or inference may be those
perceived by or made known to the expert at or before
the proceeding. If of a type reasonably relied upon by
A-3469-23
14
"net opinion rule . . . forbids the admission into evidence of an expert's
conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data." Polzo v.
Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 583 (2008) (quoting State v. Townsend, 186 N.J.
473, 494 (2006)). We conclude Dr. Sostre's opinion was supported by
competent evidence. His basis for determining L.J. was a danger to himself was
based on L.J.'s treatment for his schizophrenia and being prescribed Risperdal.
As stated, Dr. Sostre also gained knowledge of L.J.'s condition through his
personal observation of him at Beth Israel in the days preceding the hearing.
Moreover, Dr. Sostre was free to give his opinions on the ultimate issues
in the case—L.J.'s dangerousness to himself. The determination of
dangerousness to oneself "shall take into account a person's history, recent
behavior and any recent act, threat, or serious psychiatric deterioration."
N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.2(h).
Dr. Sostre's expert opinion and testimony as L.J.'s treating psychiatrist
was not based "merely on unfounded speculation" or "unquantified
possibilities." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 55 (2015) (quoting Grzanka v.
Pfeifer, 301 N.J. Super. 563, 580 (App. Div. 1997)). N.J.R.E. 702 permits a
experts in the particular field in forming opinions or
inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not
be admissible in evidence.
A-3469-23
15
qualified expert witness to testify in the form on an opinion or otherwise. Dr.
Sostre's qualifications as an expert were stipulated to at the hearing. His
testimony did not violate the prohibition against net opinions. Thus, we affirm
the entry of the June 5, 2024 order of continued involuntary commitment of L.J.
at Beth Israel.
D.
Next, L.J. argues the judge violated his due process rights by eliciting
"additional testimony on behalf of the State's case in the form of an unidentified
and unsworn social worker" after closing arguments. Because L.J. did not object
at the hearing, we review for plain error.
Under the plain error standard, L.J. carries the burden of demonstrating
that the error was "of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing
an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. "The mere possibility of error is insufficient for
reversal," N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. N.S., 412 N.J. Super. 593, 622
(App. Div. 2010), and "[r]elief under the plain error rule, R. 2:10-2, at least in
civil cases, is discretionary and 'should be sparingly employed,'" Baker v. Nat'l
State Bank, 161 N.J. 220, 226 (1999) (quoting Ford v. Reichert, 23 N.J. 429,
435 (1957)). "Generally, issues not raised below, even constitutional issues,
will not ordinarily be considered on appeal unless they are jurisdictional in
A-3469-23
16
nature or substantially implicate public interest." State v. Walker, 385 N.J.
Super. 388, 410 (App. Div. 2006).
In addition, a trial judge has "wide discretion in controlling the courtroom
and the court proceedings," and any "[a]lleged misconduct by a trial judge must
be reviewed within the context of the entire record in order to determine whether
it had prejudicial impact." D.G. ex rel. J.G. v. N. Plainfield Bd. of Educ., 400
N.J. Super. 1, 26 (App. Div. 2008). "In a bench trial . . . , a judge may examine
witnesses to clarify testimony, aid the court's understanding, elicit material
facts, and assure the efficient conduct of the trial." D.M.R. v. M.K.G., 467 N.J.
Super. 308, 320-21 (App. Div. 2021) (first citing State v. Medina, 349 N.J.
Super. 108, 131 (App. Div. 2002); and then citing N.J.R.E. 614).
Here, the judge questioned the social worker and L.J.'s counsel asked two
follow-up questions. The exchange was as follows:
[The court]: Before—before I make the decision, you
are the social worker here? Could you state your name
for the record? . . . . And respectfully, . . . . Have you
had any contact with his family?
....
[Social Worker]: I—no, I have not had any contact with
the family.
[The court]: Any family members—I mean, so the
information that he's provided to you, was that—
A-3469-23
17
information? [L.J.]'s claiming that he did . . . . He's
stating he's given you his mother's information. Is that
accurate?
[Social Worker]: [L.J.] has always provided his
address, which we are not able to confirm. He has not
provided any phone numbers.
[The court]: All right. So let [the court] apologize to
the attorneys. So if you want to ask the social worker
any questions, please do.
[L.J.'s Counsel]: Hypothetically, if [L.J.] is converted
to [CEPP] . . . or shelter in the community . . . .
[Social Worker]: Yes. That is something [L.J.] can do.
[L.J.'s Counsel]: And would you feel comfortable—
getting in contact with myself and my office—assist
with that?
[Social Worker]: Yes, I would.
[L.J.'s Counsel]: I have no other questions, Your
Honor. Thank you.
Here, the judge merely asked two open-ended questions of the social
worker and provided both counsel with the opportunity to question the social
worker before rendering his opinion. L.J.'s counsel did not object to the judge
asking questions of the social worker. Moreover, L.J.'s counsel affirmatively
asked for, and was given the opportunity, to question the social worker in the
same unsworn manner.
A-3469-23
18
We have held all witnesses who testify must be "sworn or affirmed." State
v. Caraballo, 330 N.J. Super. 545, 554 (App. Div. 2000). See also N.J.R.E. 603
("Before testifying a witness shall be required to take an oath or make an
affirmation or declaration to tell the truth under the penalty provided by law.
No witness may be barred from testifying because of religious belief or lack of
such belief.")
Based upon our review of the record, we discern no plain error. The
questions posed by the judge simply clarified what Dr. Sostre and L.J. testified
to regarding his address and phone numbers. The social worker's responses
corroborated the sworn testimony presented by Dr. Sostre and L.J. We reject
L.J.'s contention that the social worker's responses "address[ed] weaknesses in
the State's case." We are convinced the questioning of the social worker had no
prejudicial impact on the outcome of the hearing and was not clearly capable of
producing an unjust result under Rule 2:10-2.
III.
Finally, L.J. argues the judge erred in requiring his continued commitment
and failed to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law. L.J.
contends the judge failed to detail any facts that Dr. Sostre testified to and
A-3469-23
19
improvidently found the "unidentified" social worker to be "credible." L.J.
asserts there was insufficient evidence to support his continued commitment.
To support an order continuing a civil commitment, a court must make
specific findings and correlate them to the legal standards. In re Commitment
of D.M., 313 N.J. Super. 449, 454 (App. Div. 1998). The court "shall, by an
opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state
its conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury[.]" R. 1:7-4(a).
The court must state the facts forming the basis of its decision and then weigh
and evaluate those facts under the governing law "to reach whatever conclusion
may logically flow from" those facts, Slutsky v. Slutsky, 451 N.J. Super. 332,
357 (App. Div. 2017), because justice requires that "[a]ll conclusions must be
supported," ibid.
We are satisfied the judge complied with Rule 1:7-4. The judge explained
what evidence he considered. Saliently, no contradictory evidence was offered
to refute Dr. Sostre's testimony and opinions. The judge found L.J. "[r]emains
guarded, paranoid, and internally preoccupied," as well as "psychotic" with poor
judgment. The judge noted that L.J. could not be treated in a less restrictive
setting. The judge gave an explanation that comports with Rule 1:7-4 and in
A-3469-23
20
reaching his conclusion, there existed clear and convincing evidence L.J. was
mentally ill and posed a danger to himself, others, or property.
We conclude that L.J.'s remaining arguments—to the extent we have not
addressed them—lack sufficient merit to warrant any further discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3469-23
21