You are here: / / Petition for Retention for Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Granted

Petition for Retention for Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Granted

In determining the hospital’ petition for retention of a patient for involuntary psychiatric care should have been granted, the Second Department wrote:

Paulina D. is a 23-year-old woman who suffers from severe anorexia nervosa. She has been at Elmhurst Hospital (hereinafter the Hospital) “continually” for 15 months. At one point during that period, Paulina D. weighed only 52 pounds. Orders were issued directing her involuntary admission and retention at the Hospital pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.27 and 9.33. In January 2013, the Hospital petitioned for an order authorizing Paulina D.’s continued involuntary retention pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. …

“Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33, the Supreme Court may authorize the retention of a patient in a hospital for involuntary psychiatric care upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and in need of further care and treatment, and that the patient poses a substantial threat of physical harm to himself [or herself] or others” … .  Matter of Paulina D, 2013 Slip Op 01988, 2012-02212, Index No 500039/13, 2nd Dept 3-22-13

 

You might also like
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, OFFICE SOUGHT NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED (SECOND DEPT).
IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT, SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED; PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE UNDERLYING FACTS OF THE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE DIFFERENT, SENTENCES MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (SECOND DEPT).
Village Not Liable for Failure to Place a Crossing Guard at a Particular Intersection—Placement of Crossing Guards Is a “Discretionary,” Not “Ministerial,” Government Action—No Liability Absent Special Relationship to Plaintiff
Attorney Whose Testimony Would Support Client Should Have Been Disqualified Under Advocate-Witness Rule, However, the Motion to Disqualify the Attorney’s Firm Was Properly Denied
Knowledge that Water Will Be Tracked In Is Not Constructive Knowledge of a Dangerous Condition—Property Owner Is Not Required to Cover All of the Floor with Mats or Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain
THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Procedure for Invalidation of a Stipulation to the Record Court’s Sua Sponte Transfer of a Zoning-Related Case to Another County Was...