PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s medical (psychiatric) malpractice action properly survived a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was treated by defendants after he was brought to the hospital by the police pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 9.41. Plaintiff had threatened family members and killed a dog. Plaintiff was released the same day and shortly thereafter killed the three family members he had threatened. Ultimately plaintiff entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental illness or defect. The courts refused to apply the rule prohibiting a plaintiff from taking advantage of his own wrong because plaintiff was not responsible for his conduct:

With respect to the ground for dismissal asserted here, “as a matter of public policy, . . . where a plaintiff has engaged in unlawful conduct, the courts will not entertain suit if the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes a serious violation of the law and the injuries for which the plaintiff seeks recovery are the direct result of that violation” … . The rule derives from the maxim that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his [or her] own fraud, or to take advantage of his [or her] own wrong, or to found any claim upon his [or her] own iniquity, or to acquire property by his [or her] own crime” … . In cases in which the doctrine applies, “recovery is precluded ‘at the very threshold of the plaintiff’s application for judicial relief’ ” … . Notably, the Court of Appeals has applied the doctrine with caution to avoid overextending it inasmuch as the rule “embodies a narrow application of public policy imperatives under limited circumstances” … . * * *

… [A]ccepting the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, we conclude that the criminal court’s acceptance of plaintiff’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect demonstrates that, at the time of his conduct constituting a serious violation of the law, plaintiff lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either the nature and consequences of his conduct or that such conduct was wrong … . Thus, unlike cases applying the rule to preclude recovery, the record here establishes that plaintiff’s illegal conduct was not knowing, willful, intentional, or otherwise sufficiently culpable to warrant application of the rule … . Bumbolo v Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare, 2021 NY Slip Op 04429, Fourth Dept 7-16-21