You are here: / / PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED...
,

PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED RETENTION OF RESPONDENT.

The First Department affirmed the denial of the psychiatric center’s (petitioner’s) application for continued retention of respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.33. The need for continued supervision was not demonstrated by conclusory allegations that respondent posed a threat of harm or by unsupported allegations of sexual misconduct:

Although respondent’s treating psychiatrist stated in conclusory fashion that the requirements for continued involuntary retention were met, the court reasonably rejected these conclusions on the ground that they were not strongly supported by the evidence … . The psychiatrist indicated that respondent recognized his mental illness, that he had been compliant with his medication regimen, and that his treatment in the facility for more than two years had alleviated the manic symptoms he had initially presented upon admission. The psychiatrist acknowledged that respondent’s medications and therapy programs would remain readily available to him on an outpatient basis, and the psychiatrist provided no reason to doubt respondent’s claim that he would continue taking his medication once released … .

Respondent has a history of sexual preoccupation, sexual misconduct, and sexual impulsivity. However, the court gave little weight to the allegations of recent misconduct in the absence of any eyewitness testimony and in light of respondent’s denials, and there is no basis for disturbing the court’s weighing of the evidence. The remaining hearsay statements that respondent had acted inappropriately were unaccompanied by any detail, including when the incidents allegedly occurred. Matter of Gary F. 2016 NY Slip Op 06655, 1st Dept 10-11-16

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED RETENTION OF RESPONDENT)/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED RETENTION OF RESPONDENT)

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS FELONY CONVICTIONS DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO A MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SANDOVAL RULING TO ALLOW QUESTIONING ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CONVICTIONS; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEUROLOGIST AND DEFENDANT CARDIOLOGIST WERE JOINTLY DIAGNOSING AND TREATING PLAINTIFF FOR HER STROKE; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE NEUROLOGIST SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THAT A TEST ORDERED BY THE NEUROLOGIST, BUT TO BE PERFORMED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST, WAS DONE WITHIN 48 HOURS (FIRST DEPT),
DEFENDANT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS AFTER TRIAL WHEN, IN FACT, HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS GROUND FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS SENTENCE AND THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE FOR APPEAL BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney Does Not Apply If the Relevant Litigation Is a “Sham”—Here Sufficient “Sham Litigation” Allegations Were Made—Slander Per Se Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed
WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD’S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER’S DEATH DURING A TRAINING EXERCISE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-a AND LABOR LAW 27-a (FIRST DEPT).
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST 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

ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW... VILLAGE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE MELTING AND FREEZING OF A PILE OF SNOW DID NOT...