You are here: / / Respondent Failed to Demonstrate Insertion of Feeding Tube Would Impose...

Respondent Failed to Demonstrate Insertion of Feeding Tube Would Impose an “Extraordinary Burden” Upon the Petitioner​

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and ordered insertion of a feeding tube under general anesthesia for petitioner, Joseph P.  The Fourth Department noted there was evidence Joseph P. was “alert, awake, and communicative, … enjoys social interaction and activities” and, with a feeding tube, has “an excellent prognosis with many years of life.”  The Fourth Department wrote:

It is undisputed that the “threshold requirement” under [Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act] section 1750-b for allowing Joseph P.’s guardians to make the decision to withhold life-sustaining treatment has been met … . Joseph P.’s attending physician also fulfilled the requirements of section 1750-b (4) (a) of “confirm[ing] to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Joseph P. “lacks capacity to make health care decisions,” and of consulting with another physician “to further confirm” that lack of capacity …. There is also no dispute that Joseph P. has “a medical condition other than . .. mental retardation which requires life-sustaining treatment, is irreversible and . . . will continue indefinitely” (SCPA 1750-b [4] [b] [i] [C]), and that, without such treatment, he “will die within a relatively short time period” (SCPA 1750-b [1]). The sole issue before us is whether, in view of Joseph P.’s medical condition and the expected outcome of the life-sustaining treatment, i.e., the surgical insertion of the feeding tube artificially providing nutrition or hydration, imposes an “extraordinary burden” on him (SCPA 1750-b [4] [b] [iii] [B]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that respondent failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that providing nutrition and hydration to Joseph P. by means of medical treatment would impose an extraordinary burden on him (see SCPA 1750-b [1]; [4] [b] [iii] [B…).  Matter of Joseph P. …, CA 13-00798, 4th Dept, 5-24-13

 

You might also like
THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (K) WILL NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THE VIOLATION OF THAT SAME PROVISION SUPPORTS A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
AN UNPLEADED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY RAISED TO DEFEAT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS AN “UNWARNED” THREE-FOOT DROP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A DOOR IN A REMOTE AREA OF THE HOSPITAL; PLAINTIFF, A HOSPITAL WORKER, WAS INJURED BY THE THREE-FOOT DROP; THE ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND NO DUTY WAS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF; THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JUSTIFIABLY RELIED ON THE ARCHITECT’S SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND MATTER SENT BACK FOR FACTUAL FINDINGS IN THIS CUSTODY CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
A HEARING ON A DEFENDANT’S ELIGIBILITY FOR AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) CANNOT BE WAIVED AS A CONDITION OF A PLEA AGREEMENT; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE APPELLATE DIVISION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN PULLING OUT OF A PARKING LOT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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

Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment... Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion...