You are here: / / OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW COUNSEL FROM MENTAL HEALTH...
,

OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW COUNSEL FROM MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT PLANNING FOR A SEX OFFENDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissenting opinion, determined that a Mental Hygiene Legal Services (MHLS) attorney need not be granted permission to attend a treatment planning session for a client in the Sex Offender Treatment Program:

We hold that MHLS counsel is not entitled to be given an interview and an opportunity to participate in treatment planning simply by virtue of an attorney-client relationship with an article 10 respondent. * * *

… [T]he statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.10 (b) and 29.13 (b), as well as the relevant legislative history, support the conclusion that MHLS counsel was not intended to be included, as a matter of law, within the terms “authorized representative” or “significant individual.” Thus, OMH [Office of Mental Health] is not required, upon the respondent’s request, to provide an interview and an opportunity to participate in treatment planning to MHLS counsel who has only a professional, attorney-client relationship with an article 10 respondent. However, as OMH concedes, a facility has the discretion to permit MHLS counsel to participate in treatment planning and, in a particular case, it is possible that counsel could develop and demonstrate a sufficient personal relationship with a patient such that counsel would qualify as a “significant individual . . . otherwise concerned with the welfare of the patient,” entitled to participate therein. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Sullivan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01122, CtApp 2-14-19

 

​

You might also like
HERE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION’S (OCA’S) BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RE: THE FOIL REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCA AND JUDGES WAS REJECTED; ALTHOUGH UPON REMAND THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE SHOWN TO APPLY TO INIDVIDUAL, IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE OCA DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE JUDGES SUCH THAT A BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP).
THE COVID PROTOCOLS WERE IN EFFECT DURING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL; THE JURORS WERE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE MASKS WHEN THEY WERE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE; THE INABILTY TO SEE THE JURORS’ FULL FACES DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING JURY SELECTION AND DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
NYPD’S WRITTEN INVENTORY SEARCH PROTOCOL IS CONSTITUTIONAL; HERE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TURNED UP A FIREARM (CT APP). ​
a follow the settlement clause in a reinsurance treaty requires deference to the allocation of reinsurance proceeds by the insured, but does not render the allocation immune from scrutiny for reasonableness.
THE DEFENDANT, THINKING THAT THE PERSON TRYING TO BREAK-IN WAS HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND WHO HAD BROKEN IN AND ATTACKED HER BEFORE, FIRED A SINGLE SHOT THROUGH THE METAL DOOR, KILLING THE VICTIM (WHO WAS NOT HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND); BECAUSE HER USE OF THE WEAPON WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP).
Prepayment Service Agreement Does Not Constitute a Debt that is Subject to a Restraining Notice Pursuant to CPLR 5222 (b)
The Guardian of an Incapacitated Person May Not, After the Incapacitated Person’s Death, Use Guardianship Funds to Pay a Debt Incurred by the Incapacitated Person Prior to Death (Here a Debt Owed the Nursing Home Where the Incapacitated Person Was Cared For)

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

COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE,... MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK A WRIT OF MANDAMUS...