You are here: / / Court Properly Permitted Administration of Medication to Involuntarily...

Court Properly Permitted Administration of Medication to Involuntarily Committed Patient

The Second Department determined Supreme Court, after a hearing, properly permitted the Rockland Psychiatric Center to administer psychotropic medication to an involuntarily committed patient suffering from schizophrenia who had refused the medication:

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks “the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment,” and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments”… .  Matter of Jay S, 2014 NY Slip Op 04204, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

You might also like
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WAS 17 AND HAD A LONG STANDING PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP WITH MOTHER’S HUSBAND, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR GENETIC MARKER TESTING TO DETERMINE PATERNITY; THE CHILD WAS AWARE FROM A YOUNG AGE THAT THE PUTATIVE FATHER WAS THE CHILD’S BIOLOGICAL FATHER AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE PATERNITY PETITION WAS NOT IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACH OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE (RESCIND) THE STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS REQUIRED THAT THE COURT GRANT THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
THE AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD AND JUDICIARY LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE NOERR-PENNINGTON DOCTRINE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ALLEGE RELIANCE (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

Lease Provision Allowing Landlord to Comingle Security Deposit with Landlord’s... Decedent’s Statements Admissible Evidence of Pain and Suffering/Damages...