You are here: / / Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony...

Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony Should Not Have Been Included

The Second Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority, under Mental Hygiene Law 9.60, to go beyond the treatment plan and recommendations testified about by the psychiatrist in a proceeding to order Raymond G to comply with Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT).  In the absence of any recommendations about Raymond G’s use of his car, the court ordered the impoundment of his car. The Second Department reversed that part of the AOT order and explained what can be included in an AOT order under the terms of the controlling statute:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, commonly known as Kendra’s Law, “provides a framework for the judicial authorization of involuntary outpatient treatment programs for persons suffering from mental illnesses” (Matter of William C., 64 AD3d 277, 279). It sets forth, inter alia, the types of outpatient services that may be ordered by the court as part of an AOT plan, the requirements for the petition, and the procedures for a hearing on the petition (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[a][1]; [e][2]-[3]; [h][1]). * * *

The statute requires that the petition be accompanied by an affirmation or affidavit of an examining physician who recommends AOT (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[e][3][I]), and directs that the court “shall not order [AOT]” unless it is provided with a proposed written treatment plan developed by a physician appointed by the applicable community services or hospital director, which includes “all categories of services, as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which such physician recommends that the [patient] receive,” “no later than the date of the hearing on the petition” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][1]). Further, the statute provides that the court “shall not order [AOT] unless [the] physician appearing on behalf of [the] director testifies to explain the written proposed treatment plan [and] state[s] the categories of [AOT] recommended, the rationale for each such category, [and] facts which establish that such treatment is the least restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][3]).

Following the hearing, the court “may” order AOT if it finds by “clear and convincing evidence that the [patient] meets the criteria for [AOT], and there is no appropriate and feasible less restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order must include specific findings “by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed treatment is the least restrictive treatment appropriate and feasible for the [patient],” and “state an [AOT] plan, which shall include all categories of [AOT], as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which the [patient] is to receive” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order “shall not include any such category that has not been recommended in both the proposed written treatment plan and the [physician’s hearing] testimony” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]).  Matter of Raymond G…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05183, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
JUDGE DID NOT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE INCLUDED A PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, PLEA VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; DEFENDANT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING HE RESIDED AT AN ADDRESS DIFFERENT FROM THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Restarting the Statute of Limitations by Acknowledging a Debt Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACTION TO ENFORCE THE POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW, NOT THE SIX-YEAR CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CPLR 213; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT RAISED ABOUT CAUSE OF FALL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION.
Justice Should Have Recused Himself—Law Clerk Married to Hearing Witness

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

Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common... Matter Determined After a Public Hearing, As Opposed to a Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary...