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
THE ALLEGED MISPRESENTATION IN PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR CAR INSURANCE, I.E., THAT SHE LIVED IN NEW ROCHELLE AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE WHEN IN FACT SHE LIVED IN BROOKLYN AND THE CAR WOULD BE GARAGED THERE, WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE BEEN “MATERIAL” AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE INSURER HAD DENIED COVERAGE BASED UPON THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION; THE INSURER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE-ORDER COVID TOLLS APPLY TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE, RENDERING THE INDICTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER HAD NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED ELEVATOR MISALIGNMENT PROBLEM WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ABUSE OF PROCESS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES COUNTERCLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN BROKERS OVER A COMMISSION, CRITERIA FOR BOTH COUNTERCLAIMS EXPLAINED.
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, PRIMA FACIE, THE UNEVEN SEWER GRATE WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF NEVER SHIFTED TO THE PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CITY OWED A SPECIAL DUTY TO A STUDENT WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR ATTEMPTING TO CROSS THE ROAD, THAT DUTY WAS FULFILLED WHEN THE CROSSING GUARD TOLD THE STUDENT TO WALK TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE CROSSWALK, THE STUDENT, HOWEVER, THEN ATTEMPTED TO CROSS WHERE THERE WAS NO CROSSWALK (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

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...