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
Purchaser of a Firearm is an Accomplice of the Seller for Corroboration Purposes
Approval of an MRI Within Seven Years of Closure of Claimant’s Case Effectively Reopened the Case—Transfer to the Special Fund for Closed Cases Was Error
THE CLAIM DID NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF CLAIMANT’S SLIP AND FALL AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE CLAIMANT IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE WHICH WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BUT WAS FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENCE WAS DEEMED “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S RELIGION-BASED DIRECTIVES IN THIS CUSTODY CASE WERE NOT WITHIN THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD” CATEGORIES OUTLINED IN THE SEMINAL CASE, ALDOUS V ALDOUS, AND WERE THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURES TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LADDER FROM FALLING, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVISION MAKING LITIGATION THE SOLE METHOD FOR RESOLVING A DISPUTE RENDERED VOID BY GENERAL BUSINESS LAW. 

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...