You are here: / / Respondent Failed to Demonstrate Insertion of Feeding Tube Would Impose...

Respondent Failed to Demonstrate Insertion of Feeding Tube Would Impose an “Extraordinary Burden” Upon the Petitioner​

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court and ordered insertion of a feeding tube under general anesthesia for petitioner, Joseph P.  The Fourth Department noted there was evidence Joseph P. was “alert, awake, and communicative, … enjoys social interaction and activities” and, with a feeding tube, has “an excellent prognosis with many years of life.”  The Fourth Department wrote:

It is undisputed that the “threshold requirement” under [Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act] section 1750-b for allowing Joseph P.’s guardians to make the decision to withhold life-sustaining treatment has been met … . Joseph P.’s attending physician also fulfilled the requirements of section 1750-b (4) (a) of “confirm[ing] to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Joseph P. “lacks capacity to make health care decisions,” and of consulting with another physician “to further confirm” that lack of capacity …. There is also no dispute that Joseph P. has “a medical condition other than . .. mental retardation which requires life-sustaining treatment, is irreversible and . . . will continue indefinitely” (SCPA 1750-b [4] [b] [i] [C]), and that, without such treatment, he “will die within a relatively short time period” (SCPA 1750-b [1]). The sole issue before us is whether, in view of Joseph P.’s medical condition and the expected outcome of the life-sustaining treatment, i.e., the surgical insertion of the feeding tube artificially providing nutrition or hydration, imposes an “extraordinary burden” on him (SCPA 1750-b [4] [b] [iii] [B]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that respondent failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that providing nutrition and hydration to Joseph P. by means of medical treatment would impose an extraordinary burden on him (see SCPA 1750-b [1]; [4] [b] [iii] [B…).  Matter of Joseph P. …, CA 13-00798, 4th Dept, 5-24-13

 

You might also like
DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS EMPLOYER, UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
IT MAY HAVE BEEN ERROR TO ALLOW THE VICTIM TO TESTIFY ACCOMPANIED BY A DOG, BUT THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED; ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTOR MADE AN IMPROPER COMMENT IT DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL; PROSECUTORS ADMONISHED THAT THEIR ROLE IS TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE, NOT SIMPLY SEEK CONVICTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MONROE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, WERE EITHER ABSOLUTELY OR QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
The One-Year-and-Ninety-Day Time Limit for Bringing Suit Under the Public Authorities Law Is a Statute of Limitations, Not a Condition Precedent to Suit, and Is Therefore Subject to the Six-Month Extension for Recommencing a Suit Which Was Dismissed Without Prejudice Provided by CPLR 205(a)
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, THERE WAS NO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RATHER THERE WAS A DELAY IN PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S DNA ON THE WEAPON AND DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE AS A PASSENGER IN THE CAR WHERE THE WEAPON WAS FOUND WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE WEAPON AT THE TIME ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION REVERSED BASED ON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection, to Defendant’s Request that the Jury Not Be Charged on a Lesser Included Offense—To Do So Denies Defendant His Right to the Expert Judgment of Counsel
THE ONE COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RENDERED DUPLICITOUS BY THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AND WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL; THE APPELLATE COURT NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN NARROWED AT TRIAL, DISMISSAL WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE PRETRIAL NOTICE OF THE CHARGES (FOURTH 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

Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment... Hearsay Evidence Can Be Considered in Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion...