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
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE COVID VACCINATIONS; THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER ALLEGEDLY WANTED THE VACCINE, MOTHER OBJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, A PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY AGENCY FOR DISABLED PERSONS, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNFETTERED ACCESS TO RECORDS OF ABUSE KEPT BY RESPONDENT JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE DISABLED PERSONS REQUIRE THAT PERSONS FOR WHOM THE RECORDS ARE SOUGHT BE SPECFICALLY IDENTIFIED ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR RELEASE OF THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN THE FEDERAL DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
THE DEFAULT LETTER, WHICH INDICATED THE MORTGAGE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED AT A SPECIFIC FUTURE DATE IF THE DEFAULT WERE NOT CURED, DID NOT ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING AND THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TRUST SET UP BY DECEDENT; PLAINITIFFS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THE DECEDENT (A THIRD PARTY), NOT THE PLAINTIFFS, RELIED ON THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE STATEMENT; THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE DECEDENT WHICH AFFECTED THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE-RELATED DECISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment Benefits
PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO AS THEY SOUGHT TO VACATE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSED TO THE POINT WHERE THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
Town, In Reviewing a Special Use Permit Application Under Its Zoning Regulations after the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process Is Complete, Must Rely on the SEQRA Findings and Cannot Make Further Environmental Impact Findings
MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, EXPLAINING MOTHER’S ABSENCE, MOTHER, CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, WAS NOT IN DEFAULT AND COULD APPEAL THE ORDER.

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...