You are here: / / IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE...
,

IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined that the combined hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law sections 9.31 and 9.39 was improper but the patient was not prejudiced by the procedure. The respondent had been released from the hospital, so the appeal was moot. But the Third Department heard the case because the issue was likely to otherwise evade review:

As we understand respondent’s position, she maintains that in the context presented — where a patient is admitted on an emergency basis under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 and has demanded a hearing, but whose status is converted to an involuntary admission on medical certification under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 prior to the hearing — the ensuing hearing must be limited to a section 9.39 format. Respondent emphasizes that she never requested a hearing under section 9.31 to challenge her involuntary admission. By holding a combined hearing, respondent contends that County Court deprived her of her statutory right to demand a later hearing under section 9.31. * * *

The … question is whether County Court improperly combined the hearings … to conclusively resolve whether respondent was entitled to release that day, assuming the proof fell short under either standard. That question is resolved by the procedures outlined in Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 (a) and 9.39 (a) (2), which vest in the patient — not the court or hospital — the right to request a hearing under each section. In that regard, we agree with respondent that, because she never requested a hearing under section 9.31, the court erred in holding a combined hearing and she retained the right to later request a hearing under section 9.31. On the other hand, had respondent also requested a section 9.31 hearing, we see no reason why a combined hearing could not be held by the court, provided it did so within the applicable statutory deadlines and considered both statutory standards in rendering its decision. Matter of Julie O., 2024 NY Slip Op 00015, Third Dept 1-4-24

Practice Point: Here an “emergency” hospital admission under the Mental Hygiene Law and an “involuntary” admission were pending at the same the time. The admissions have different standards. Therefore, if the patient does not request a combined hearing the court should not hold one. However a patient could request a combined hearing.

Practice Point: Here the patient had been released from the hospital and the appeal of the patient’s admission was moot. However the Third Department considered the case because the issue was likely to evade review.

 

You might also like
Questioning by Police and Caseworker Violated Defendant’s Right to Counsel, Failure to Suppress Statements Was Not Harmless Error
Guidelines With Pre-Authorized Specific Procedure List for Medical Tests and Services Held Valid; Variance Procedure for Tests and Services Not on List Held Valid
Post-Arrest Exception to Warrant Requirement for Automobile Search Explained
THE ARTICLE OF THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW WHICH ALLOWS INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORTS (IFS) CONTESTS AND EXCLUDES SUCH CONTESTS FROM THE PENAL LAW GAMBLING PROHIBITIONS VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION (THIRD DEPT).
“Head Waiter” with Substantial Managerial Duties and “Wine Steward” Whose Duties Did Not Include Serving Customers Were Not Entitled to Share in the Servers’ and Bus Boys’ Tip Pool
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
Adjunct Professor Entitled to Unemployment Benefits Between Spring and Fall Semesters
CITY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE PROTRUDING SIGN ANCHOR IN THE SIDEWALK AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE CONDITION WAS THE IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD 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

THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFFS’... THE NEW JERSEY ORDER AND JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT...