You are here: / Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony...

Search Results

/

Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony Should Not Have Been Included

The Second Department determined Supreme Court did not have the authority, under Mental Hygiene Law 9.60, to go beyond the treatment plan and recommendations testified about by the psychiatrist in a proceeding to order Raymond G to comply with Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT).  In the absence of any recommendations about Raymond G’s use of his car, the court ordered the impoundment of his car. The Second Department reversed that part of the AOT order and explained what can be included in an AOT order under the terms of the controlling statute:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60, commonly known as Kendra’s Law, “provides a framework for the judicial authorization of involuntary outpatient treatment programs for persons suffering from mental illnesses” (Matter of William C., 64 AD3d 277, 279). It sets forth, inter alia, the types of outpatient services that may be ordered by the court as part of an AOT plan, the requirements for the petition, and the procedures for a hearing on the petition (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[a][1]; [e][2]-[3]; [h][1]). * * *

The statute requires that the petition be accompanied by an affirmation or affidavit of an examining physician who recommends AOT (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[e][3][I]), and directs that the court “shall not order [AOT]” unless it is provided with a proposed written treatment plan developed by a physician appointed by the applicable community services or hospital director, which includes “all categories of services, as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which such physician recommends that the [patient] receive,” “no later than the date of the hearing on the petition” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][1]). Further, the statute provides that the court “shall not order [AOT] unless [the] physician appearing on behalf of [the] director testifies to explain the written proposed treatment plan [and] state[s] the categories of [AOT] recommended, the rationale for each such category, [and] facts which establish that such treatment is the least restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[i][3]).

Following the hearing, the court “may” order AOT if it finds by “clear and convincing evidence that the [patient] meets the criteria for [AOT], and there is no appropriate and feasible less restrictive alternative” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order must include specific findings “by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed treatment is the least restrictive treatment appropriate and feasible for the [patient],” and “state an [AOT] plan, which shall include all categories of [AOT], as set forth in [§ 9.60(a)(1)], which the [patient] is to receive” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]). The order “shall not include any such category that has not been recommended in both the proposed written treatment plan and the [physician’s hearing] testimony” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]).  Matter of Raymond G…, 2014 NY Slip Op 05183, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/ ,

Matter Determined After a Public Hearing, As Opposed to a Quasi-Judicial Evidentiary Hearing, Is Reviewed Under the “Arbitrary and Capricious,” Not “Substantial Evidence,” Standard/Village’s Higher Rate for Water Delivered to Customers Outside Its Borders Was Rational

The Second Department determined that, because there was a public hearing, not a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing, on whether the village could charge a higher rate for water supplied outside its borders, Supreme Court should have determined the matter under the arbitrary and capricious standard. In applying that standard, the Second Department found the higher rate had a rational basis:

The Supreme Court erred in characterizing the proceeding as one in the nature of certiorari in which the “substantial evidence” inquiry applied (CPLR 7804[g]). Rate-making determinations may be considered “judicial in the sense that they are reviewable by certiorari or a proceeding in the nature of certiorari” where notice and a hearing are prescribed by statute … . However, “there are different types of hearings with different legal consequences” … . Here, the Village Code required the Board to conduct a hearing in advance of changing the rates it charged for water service, and the Board held a public hearing, as opposed to a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing (see Code of the Village of Williston Park § 225-20[A]). As such, judicial review of the determination was limited to “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” … . * * *

The Board’s determination to increase rates was rational, and was not arbitrary and capricious or illegal. A municipal water supplier may charge a higher rate to customers outside its borders, including other municipalities, so long as the difference has a rational basis … . Moreover, a municipal corporation operating a public water utility is entitled to earn a “fair return” on its investment in the utility’s facilities “over and above costs of operation and necessary and proper reserves” in addition to “an amount equivalent to taxes which [the utility], if privately owned, would pay to such municipal corporation” (General Municipal Law § 94; see NY Const art IX, § 1[f]). The actual rate the Board determined to charge also was rational … . In addition, the petitioner has not made any showing that the profits earned by the Incorporated Village of Williston Park under the new rate schedule, as compared to the “value of the property used and useful in such public utility service, over and above costs of operation and necessary and proper reserves,” were in excess of a “fair return” … . Matter of Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Williston v Board of Trustees of Inc Vil of Williston Park, 2014 NY Slip Op 05179, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/ , ,

Jury’s Finding a Party Was at Fault But Such Fault Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Should Not Have Been Set Aside as Inconsistent and Against the Weight of the Evidence

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence should not have been granted.  Plaintiff was injured when he dove to catch a ball in an area which had poles sticking up out of the ground.  The plaintiff, who was 10 years old at the time, knew the poles were there.  The jury found that the property owner was at fault but that such fault was not the proximate cause of the accident.  The Second Department held that the verdict was not inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence:

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that such fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” … . ” [W]here there is a reasonable view of the evidence under which it is not logically impossible to reconcile a finding of negligence but no proximate cause, it will be presumed that, in returning such a verdict, the jury adopted that view'” … . Here, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the conclusion that the infant plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Henry v Town of Hempstead, 2014 NY Slip Op 05157, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/

Surrogate’s Court Properly Declined to Suspend the Fiduciaries’ Letters Testamentary and Letters of Trusteeship Pending a Hearing to Determine the Contested Facts

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly declined to suspend the fiduciaries’ letters testamentary and letters of trusteeship pending the outcome of an accounting proceeding.  Although allegations of comingling property would support such a suspension, the allegations were contested and it would be an abuse of discretion to order the suspension without a hearing:

The removal of a fiduciary pursuant to SCPA 711 and 719 is equivalent to “a judicial nullification of the testator’s choice and may only be decreed when the grounds set forth in the relevant statutes have been clearly established” … .

Nevertheless, pursuant to SCPA 719(7), “letters [issued to a fiduciary] may be suspended, modified or revoked, or a lifetime trustee removed or his powers suspended or modified, without process. . . . [w]here he mingles the funds of the estate with his own or deposits them with any person, association or corporation . . . in an account other than as fiduciary” (SCPA 719[7] [emphasis added]). Fiduciary letters also may be suspended without process “[w]here any of the facts provided in 711 are brought to the attention of the court” (SCPA 719[10]).

However, as noted in Matter of Duke (87 NY2d 465),

“[w]hile the Surrogate is clearly granted the exceptional authority to summarily remove executors without the formality of commencing a separate proceeding, the authority to exercise the ultimate sanction summarily is not absolute. The Surrogate may remove without a hearing only where the misconduct is established by undisputed facts or concessions, where the fiduciary’s in-court conduct causes such facts to be within the court’s knowledge, or where facts warranting amendment of letters are presented to the court during a related evidentiary proceeding” (Matter of Duke, 87 NY2d at 472-473 [internal citations omitted; emphasis added]).

Thus, revoking a fiduciary’s letters without a hearing pursuant to SCPA 719 will constitute an abuse of discretion “where the facts are disputed, where conflicting inferences may be drawn therefrom . . . or where there are claimed mitigating facts that, if established, would render summary removal an inappropriate remedy” … .

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the allegations in this case are sharply disputed and give rise to conflicting inferences regarding the Fiduciaries’ alleged misconduct. Matter of Mercer, 2014 NY Slip Op 05186, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/ , ,

Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When Decedent Was Shot

The Second Department determined that an off-duty corrections officer (Maldonado) was not acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed a man:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . However, an employer may not be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if, at the time of the underlying incident, the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business … .

Here, the claimant’s decedent was shot by an off-duty New York State Corrections Officer, Emilio Maldonado, after a dispute. The record showed, inter alia, that Maldonado was assaulted by the claimant’s decedent and his brother following a traffic dispute. At the time of the incident, Maldonado was driving his personal vehicle, and was accompanied by family members. He was carrying his own privately-owned weapon as well as a badge. * * *

Although Maldonado testified in a related criminal action that he intended or planned to “cuff” and detain the assailants, it is undisputed that he never took any affirmative steps toward effecting a detention. In particular, he did not order the assailants to halt, and he did not physically attempt to handcuff or detain them. It is also undisputed that after the shooting, Maldonado did not attempt to detain the fleeing assailants. Under these circumstances, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Maldonado acted within the scope of his official duties… . Wood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05173, 7-9-14

 

/ , ,

Plaintiffs Could Not Demonstrate the Alleged Malpractice Was Proximate Cause of Damages—Summary Judgment Properly Granted to Defendants—Elements of Attorney Malpractice Action Explained

The Second Department determined that any deficiencies in the attorney’s motion papers, seeking to vacate a default, were not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ damages, therefore the malpractice action was properly dismissed.  The court explained the elements of an attorney malpractice action:

To sustain a cause of action alleging legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish that the attorney “failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession,” and that the attorney’s breach of this duty proximately caused the plaintiff actual and ascertainable damages … .

Even if a plaintiff establishes the first prong of a legal malpractice cause of action, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that he or she would have succeeded on the merits of the action but for the attorney’s negligence … . “[A]s to [this] second prong, the plaintiff must plead and prove actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney’s negligence” … .

“To obtain summary judgment dismissing a complaint in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff is unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of [his or her] legal malpractice cause of action”… . Di Giacomo v Langella, 2014 NY Slip Op 05150, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/

Petitioner Sufficiently Alleged She Is a Nonmarital Child of the Decedent—Probate Decree Properly Vacated

The Second Department determined Surrogate’s Court properly vacated a probate decree based upon petitioner’s assertion she is a nonmarital child of the decedent:

Here, the petitioner … sufficiently alleged that the decedent … “openly and notoriously acknowledged [her] as his own [child]” and, thus, she may be entitled to inherit from him (EPTL 4-1.2[a][2][C][ii]…). Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied the executor’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition.

” Because vacatur disrupts the orderly process of administration and creates a continual aura of uncertainty and nonfinality, a probate decree will be vacated only in extraordinary circumstances'” … . “However, it is equally true that the Court should also be slow to say that an injustice may not be corrected'” … . “A petitioner seeking to vacate a probate decree must establish with some degree of probability that his claim is well founded, and that, if afforded an opportunity, he will be able to substantiate it'” … . An application to vacate a probate decree is committed to the discretion of the court … . Here, the petitioner showed with some degree of probability that she is a nonmarital child of the decedent and that, if afforded an opportunity, she will be able to substantiate her claim. Matter of Saginario, 2014 NY Slip Op 05192, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

/ ,

Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed

The Third Department determined County Court erred by imposing $100,000 restitution without a hearing.  The People had determined the $100,000 figure was excessive and had requested restitution in the approximate amount of $32,000:

….[W]e agree with defendant that County Court erred in ordering restitution in the amount of $100,000 without a hearing. By statute, when a court requires restitution, it must make a finding as to the actual amount of loss and, “[i]f the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such finding or upon request by the defendant, the court must conduct a hearing” (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]…). Defendant sufficiently preserved this challenge to the increased amount of restitution, in that defense counsel and the People questioned it at sentencing … . Upon review, we find that there is no evidence in the record to support the court’s imposition of $100,000 in restitution. To the contrary, at sentencing the People characterized such figure as “excessive,” stated that they “lacked sufficient documentation and proof” to support that amount, and proffered evidence supporting restitution in the amount of $32,240, a figure to which the victim, the court and defendant had all agreed. Further, there are statutory limits on the amount of restitution, which may be exceeded, as relevant here, provided “‘the amount in excess [is] limited to the return of the victim’s property, including money, or the equivalent value thereof'” … . Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for a restitution hearing or a redetermination of restitution consistent with the plea agreement. Given that “[a] sentencing court may not impose a more severe sentence than one bargained for without providing [the] defendant the opportunity to withdraw his [or her] plea” …, under the circumstances here, upon remittal, defendant must be afforded an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea if a hearing is held and the amount of restitution imposed exceeds the originally agreed upon amount, i.e., $32,240. People v Pleasant, 2014 NY Slip Op 04981, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

Fraud Cause of Action Seeking Only Lost Profits as Damages Must Be Dismissed

The Third Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action could not go forward because plaintiff sought only lost profits as damages.  Also dismissed and briefly discussed were “conspiracy to commit fraud (not a valid separate cause of action),” prima facie tort and a demand for punitive damages:

Plaintiff’s cause of action alleging fraud requires “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact known to be false and made with the intent to deceive, as well as justifiable reliance and damages” … . * * * “The true measure of damage [for fraud] is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the out-of-pocket rule” … . Damages for fraudulent acts should “compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained” … . As plaintiff does not dispute that it seeks only the lost profit it anticipated earning as a result of conveying the property to BLP, defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action … .

Plaintiff’s second cause of action alleging a conspiracy to commit fraud must also be dismissed because “‘a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action'” … . Plaintiff’s third cause of action for prima facie tort “requires a showing of an intentional infliction of harm, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts that would otherwise be lawful” … . Significantly, “[s]uch acts must be motivated solely by malevolence” … . Plaintiff … makes no claim that defendants were motivated — even in part — by malevolence. As for plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for declaratory relief, it too must be dismissed as entirely unnecessary under the circumstances here … .

Nor, in light of our determination that plaintiff failed to establish its causes of action for fraud and prima facie tort, is this a case for punitive damages. There is no basis upon which to conclude that defendants’ conduct “‘evince[s] a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrate[s] such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations'” … . Route 217, LLC v Greeg, 2014 NY Slip Op 04998, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

/

People v Rudolph (Requiring Sentencing Court to Consider Youthful Offender Status for All Eligible Defendants) Applied Retroactively to 2008 Conviction (on Direct Appeal)

The Third Department determined the ruling in People v Rudolph (21 NY3d 497 [2013]), requiring that courts always consider youthful offender status for eligible defendants, applied retroactively to a 2008 conviction by guilty plea in which the defendant agreed he would not receive youthful offender status:

In People v Rudolph (supra), the Court of Appeals, overruling precedent, held that the statutory command in CPL 720.20 (1) that the sentencing court address youthful offender status when a defendant is eligible for such status “cannot be dispensed with, even where defendant has failed to ask to be treated as a youthful offender, or has purported to waive his or her right to make such a request” (id. at 499). When addressing such status, the sentencing court should set forth factors considered in its determination …, particularly when denying youthful offender status … .

The People * * * assert that, since the sentence was consistent with prevailing precedent when imposed …., the holding in Rudolph should not be applied retroactively. However, notwithstanding the lengthy delay in perfecting this appeal, this case is before us on direct appeal — not a collateral attack — and the law as it now exists controls… . People v Calkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 04977, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

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