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
THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE DEFENDANT PUNCHED THE POLICE OFFICER AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS SPRAYED IN THE FACE WITH PEPPER SPRAY; THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE TO THE ASSAULT CHARGE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Strictly Comply with Notice Rules of the Real Property Tax Law Required Dismissal of the Challenge to the Tax Assessment/Criteria for Review of Competing Expert Evidence of Valuation Explained
WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT WAS NOT OVERWHELMING, COUNTY COURT’S ERROR IN ALLOWING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL WHICH THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY PRECLUDED REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL.
THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO ALLOW THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO BE CIRCUMVENTED BY “PIGGYBACKING” A NEW PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT ON A PRIOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT AWARDED AFTER COMPETITIVE BIDDING (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY SERVICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT A PERSON UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND CARE FROM HARMING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; PLAINTIFF WAS KIDNAPPED AND RAPED BY A PERSON WITH A VIOLENT PAST WHO WAS UNDER DEFENDANT’S CARE AND SUPERVISION (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ DECISION TO PURCHASE NEW VOTING MACHINES WHICH OPERATE BY SCANNING A BAR CODE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND PETITIONER, COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN INJURY-IN-FACT; COMMON CAUSE ARGUED THE USE OF A BAR CODE WHICH IS SCANNED BY THE MACHINE WILL IMPEDE VERIFICATION OF THE VOTING BALLOTS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT).
SMALL INFORMAL LAW FIRM PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATE PREVIOUSLY REPRESENTED THE OPPOSING PARTY 3RD 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...