You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
, , ,

PETITIONER, THE GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SINCE 2012, WAS ASKED TO RECERTIFY THE GUARDIANSHIP BY A NEW BANK WHICH TOOK OVER THE ACCOUNTS; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO CONTINUE THE TERMS OF THE 2012 ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, MODIFIED THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER ABSENT A REQUEST FROM A PARTY TO DO SO (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the justice presiding over this guardianship proceeding should not have “sua sponte” changed the terms of the existing guardianship absent a request from a party to do so. The appellate courts do not like “sua sponte” rulings. The petitioner was appointed guardian of the person and property of an incapacitated person in 2012. This proceeding was prompted by a new bank which took over the incapacitated person’s accounts and requested that petitioner “recertify” his guardianship status. Petitioner brought this proceeding to continue the terms of the original 2012 order:

… [P]etitioner [the contends that Supreme Court erred in modifying the terms of the guardianship. We find this contention to have merit. As petitioner was appointed guardian in 2012, there was no basis to appoint a temporary guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.23 [a]). Nor was there a basis to remove the guardian (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35). Although a court may terminate or modify a guardian’s powers upon a showing that, “for some other reason, . . . the guardian is no longer necessary . . . or the powers of the guardian should be modified based upon changes in the circumstances of the incapacitated person” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 [a] [4]), such application cannot be made sua sponte, but must “be made by the guardian, the incapacitated person, or any person entitled to commence a proceeding under this article” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.36 [b] …). Nevertheless, when authorizing the powers that may be exercised by a guardian of the property, courts are to employ “the least restrictive form of intervention,” taking into consideration, among other things, the incapacitated “person’s wishes, preferences, and desires with regard to managing the activities of daily living” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 [a]).

Here, there was no request before Supreme Court to modify the terms of the guardianship, as petitioner moved to continue the same terms of the original order to satisfy the requests of the new banking institution — specifically, petitioner’s access to “all bank accounts, annuity payments, entitlements and other financial resources in [respondent’s] possession or payable to her.” However, the order issued by Supreme Court failed to contain this language and otherwise did not conform to the requirements of the statute (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.15 [c]; 81.16). To the extent that this order is further interpreted as increasing the powers of the guardian by requiring petitioner to now pay certain monthly expenses that respondent already successfully handles on her own, we agree with petitioner that the record does not support this change as being the least restrictive form of intervention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.21 [a]). Accordingly, this portion of Supreme Court’s order must be reversed and vacated. Matter of Karissa W., 2026 NY Slip Op 03490, Third Dept 6-4-26

Practice Point: The decision illustrates the appellate courts’ disapproval of sua sponte rulings, i.e,, rulings which are not precipitated by a party’s motion.

 

, , , , ,

MOTHER STABBED HER TWO CHILDREN AND FILED AN INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL; THE SURVIVING DAUGHTER AND FATHER SUED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL ALLEGING MOTHER WAS NEGLIGENTLY TREATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE STABBING; MOTHER WAIVED THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT AND RELATED PRIVILEGES BY FILING THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESENT A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF MOTHER’S MEDICAL RECORDS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, reversing Supreme Court, determined non-party mother had waived the physician-patient and related privileges by filing a Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) section 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the prior criminal trial. Mother had stabbed her two children. The instant personal injury action is brought by the surviving child and her father alleging mother was negligently treated by defendant hospital shortly before the stabbing. The plaintiffs sought discovery of mother’s medical records:

Generally, medical records are protected from disclosure (see CPLR 4504 [physician-patient privilege]; 4507 [psychologist-patient privilege]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13[c] [privilege for patient information reported to the Office of Mental Health or the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities]). However, a patient can waive those privileges “either expressly by authorizing the record’s release or implicitly by placing his or her mental condition in issue” … . However, simply denying the allegations in a complaint does not constitute such a waiver … . * * *

… [W]aiver of the physician-patient and related privileges in a criminal action generally carries over to a subsequent civil action, provided the defendant’s mental condition remains at issue … . * * *

We are of the view that … the filing of a CPL 250.10 notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in the criminal case was sufficient to demonstrate that [mother]  placed her mental condition at issue so as to waive her privilege to confidentiality of her medical, psychiatric, and mental health records maintained by [defendant]. . S.M. v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 03248, First Dept 5-21-26

Practice Point: Filing a notice of intent to present a psychiatric defense in a criminal trial waives the physician-patient and related privileges and the waiver carries over to a subsequent related civil action.

 

, , ,

UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court improperly ignored the terms of the Second Department’s remittitur. On the prior appeal, the Second Department held that the petitioner had proven respondent suffered from sexual sadism disorder. On remittal, however, Supreme Court held a new nonjury trial on all issues, including whether respondent suffered from sexual sadism disorder:

“A trial court, upon remittitur, lacks the power to deviate from the mandate of the higher court” … . Therefore, “an order or judgment entered on remittitur ‘must conform strictly to the remittitur'” … .

Here, as the determination of this Court in the January 2024 order is binding upon the Supreme Court … , the Supreme Court erred in, sua sponte, holding a nonjury trial on all issues and redetermining issues already determined by this Court … . Accordingly, the first May 2025 order must be reversed, and we remit the matter again to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial and determination as to whether the respondent’s diagnoses of ASPD, psychopathy, and sexual sadism disorder are sufficient to find that the respondent suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) … , and a dispositional hearing, if appropriate … . Matter of State of New York v Ezikiel R., 2026 NY Slip Op 02987, Second Dept 5-13-26

Practice Point: A trial court cannot deviate from the mandate of a higher court. Here the appellate court’s finding was ignored by Supreme Court upon remittal, requiring reversal and another remittal.

 

,

THE GUARDIAN’S ILLNESS PRECIPITATED THE PETITION TO REMOVE HER; UPON HER RECOVERY THERE WAS NO JUST CAUSE FOR HER REMOVAL; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the evidence did not support the removal of the incapacitated person’s (Frank’s) wife, Zita, as the guardian of the person and property of Frank. The removal petition, brought by Frank’s daughter, Tara, was dismissed:

In December 2022, the wife was temporarily hospitalized, which precipitated the petition … to remove her as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person. …

The determination “to remove a guardian of the person and property of an incapacitated person pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” … . The “overarching concern remains the best interest of the incapacitated person” … . “A guardian may be removed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35 when the guardian fails to comply with an order, is guilty of misconduct, or for any other cause which to the court shall appear just” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in removing the wife as guardian of the person and property of the incapacitated person (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.35). The wife’s temporary medical crisis that had precipitated the petition was resolved, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of the wife’s actions regarding the incapacitated person’s care were a just cause for removal … . Matter of Frank M. (Zita C.–Tara M. M.), 2026 NY Slip Op 02116, Second Dept 4-8-26

Practice Point: Other than the guardian’s illness, there was no support for her removal as guardian. Her recovery, therefore, warranted dismissal of the removal petition.

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S WILL IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge in this guardianship proceeding pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law did not have the authority to invalidate the incapacitated person’s will:

… [T]he court ,,, adjudged Vincent V. L. to be an incapacitated person within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 and appointed an independent guardian for his person and property. At issue on this appeal … is whether the court properly directed, in the context of this Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding, that the last will and testament of Vincent V. L. … , was void ab initio.

Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) expressly provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he court shall not . . . invalidate or revoke a will or a codicil of an incapacitated person during the lifetime of such person” in the context of a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding. The Supreme Court thus did not have the authority to invalidate Vincent V. L.’s last will and testament in the context of this Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding. Matter of Vincent V.L. (Matthew L.–Tomasine F.), 2026 NY Slip Op 01789, Second Dept 3-25-26

Practice Point: The Mental Hygiene Law prohibits the invalidation of an incapacitated person’s will in a guardianship proceeding.

 

, , ,

A HOSPITAL HAS A DUTY TO RETAIN AN INTOXICATED PATIENT WHO HAS BEEN ADMITTED INVOLUNTARILY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IF THE PATIENT IS INCAPACITATED TO A DEGREE THERE WAS A LIKELIHOOD OF HARM TO THE PATIENT OR OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital breached its duty to retain the decedent for emergency treatment because decedent was incapacitated by alcohol to a degree there was a likelihood of harm to decedent or others:

A hospital does not owe an intoxicated patient, who went to the hospital voluntarily, a duty to prevent that patient from leaving the hospital against medical advice even when that patient has been admitted to the hospital for medical treatment … . By contrast, however, the decedent here was admitted involuntarily (see Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 [e]). Defendant therefore had a duty to retain decedent for emergency treatment if decedent was incapacitated by alcohol or substances to such a degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, as those terms are defined under Mental Hygiene Law former § 22.09 … .

Assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its burden of demonstrating that it did not breach its duty to ensure that decedent was no longer incapacitated to the degree that there was a likelihood to result in harm to decedent or others, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact. Plaintiff’s expert opined that, under the circumstances and “especially in such proximity to the events that occurred in the hospital in the hours prior to discharge,” it was a breach of the standard of care to allow decedent to be discharged … . Guadagno v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 2026 NY Slip Op 01698, Fourth Dept 3-20-26

Practice Point: A hospital has a duty to retain an intoxicated patient who has been admitted involuntarily if the patient is incapacitated to a degree there is a likelihood of harm to the patient or others. That duty is not triggered by an intoxicated patient who went to the hospital voluntarily.

 

, , ,

RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the judge, who had declined to issue a temporary “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) for respondent and had set the matter down for a hearing, did not have the authority to, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and dismiss the petition. After respondent had threatened self harm he was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

… [O]ne day prior to the scheduled hearing, Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a decision canceling the hearing and dismissing the petition. As grounds for the dismissal, the court found that dismissal best served the interest of preserving judicial and law enforcement resources given respondent’s inability to purchase a firearm due to the arrest pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41, purported hospital admission pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) and the lack of any indication that respondent owned any firearms in New York at the time of the proceeding. …

To begin, as the order on appeal was issued on a sua sponte basis, no appeal lies as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]). Nevertheless, “we treat the notice of appeal as a request for permission to appeal and grant the request” … .

… Supreme Court’s sua sponte order dismissing the petition must be reversed. “[S]ua sponte dismissals are to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant them” … . Here, there is no indication that such extraordinary circumstances exist. The grounds relied upon by Supreme Court — that the relief that would be provided by an ERPO was “duplicative and an inefficient use of judicial and law enforcement resources” — to the extent that they could constitute meritorious grounds for dismissal, require that petitioner be given the opportunity to respond and object … . Moreover, CPLR 6343 (1) clearly mandates that if a temporary ERPO is denied, such as occurred here, the court hold a hearing, no later than 10 business days after the application for the ERPO is served on the respondent, to determine whether an ERPO should be issued. Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal on grounds that are entirely absent from the statute was improper, and we therefore reverse and remit to conduct a hearing as required. Matter of Hogencamp v Matthew KK., 2025 NY Slip Op 06106, Third Dept 11-6-25

Practice Point: Sua sponte orders are not appealable as of right. Permission to appeal must be requested.​

Practice Point: Here the respondent threatened self harm and was taken into custody pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law. A judge’s authority is constrained by the Mental Hygiene Law. Once an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) is denied by the judge and the matter is set down for a hearing, the judge cannot, sua sponte, cancel the hearing and deny the petition for reasons not prescribed in the Mental Hygiene Law.

 

, ,

THE SEARCH OF THE UNCONSCIOUS OR SLEEPING DEFENDANT’S POCKETS WAS NOT A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST OR A SEARCH PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE SEIZED COCAINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the drug-possession indictment, determined the police officer’s search of defendant’s pocket while he was unconscious was not a valid search incident to arrest a was not justified under the Mental Hygiene Law. The police entered the apartment with the tenant’s permission to search for a person for whom they had an arrest warrant. The tenant told the police the defendant had the same first name as the name on the warrant but that defendant was not the person they were looking for. Defendant was sitting at the kitchen table either unconscious or asleep. When the police officer couldn’t wake the defendant up, the officer searched his pockets and found cocaine:

The officers called an ambulance for defendant, but when the ambulance arrived, the medical personnel were able to wake defendant and determined that he did not need medical care. During his testimony at the suppression hearing, the officer asserted that Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 permitted him to search defendant inasmuch as he was planning to call an ambulance to transport defendant. The suppression court determined that the officer’s search of defendant’s person was justified by Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 and that the search was analogous to a search incident to arrest.

… The People correctly concede that the officer did not believe that defendant had committed a crime before he searched defendant’s pockets, and thus the search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest … . … [W]e cannot conclude that the police officer was acting pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 22.09 because, contrary to the People’s assertion, there was insufficient evidence that defendant was in danger of harming himself or others … . People v Ruise, 2025 NY Slip Op 05589, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: For a warrantless search of a person to be justified under the Mental Hygiene Law there must be evidence the defendant is in danger of harming himself or others.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INITIAL INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION OF A MENTALLY ILL PATIENT REQUIRES CERTIFICATION BY LICENSED PHYSICIANS, A NURSE PRACTITIONER IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE SUBSEQUENT RETENTION HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Love, determined that, at a hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene law sections 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner can rely on the testimony of a nurse practitioner. The controlling statute does not require the testimony of a licensed physician:

Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27 et seq. establishes the procedure for the involuntary admission and retention of patients alleged to be mentally ill in a hospital. Pursuant to that section, a patient may be initially involuntarily admitted to a hospital upon the certification of two examining physicians, which must then be confirmed by a third physician who is a member of the psychiatric staff of that hospital … . A question of first impression before this Court on this appeal is whether, at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31 and 9.33 to retain an involuntary patient, the petitioner must furnish the testimony of a licensed physician rather than a nurse practitioner. * * *

There is no support in the statute or any related regulations for the proposition that the petitioner must establish its prima facie burden through physician testimony. Moreover, it reasonably can be argued that requiring the testimony of a physician, who may have comparably less knowledge of a specific patient’s mental condition compared to an experienced nurse practitioner who interacts extensively with that patient, would be a disservice to the court and the parties. The court, hearing the testimony and evidence in its totality, is in the best position to determine the value and credibility of a witness in determining these matters. Accordingly, we conclude that a nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a hearing held pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.31(c) and 9.33(c). Matter of Raymond E., 2025 NY Slip Op 04006, Second Dept 7-2-25

Practice Point: A nurse practitioner is competent to testify at a retention hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law section 9.31 and 9.33.

 

, ,

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, an incarcerated person with serious mental illness, did not violate the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act) but did violate the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (SHU Exclusion Law):

… [P]etitioner remained in the RMHU [residential mental health treatment unit] where he received at least seven hours of out-of-cell time, therefore he was not in segregated confinement, which is defined as “the confinement of an incarcerated individual in any form of cell confinement for more than [17] hours a day” (Correction Law § 2 [23]). * * * Therefore, based on the foregoing, DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] did not violate Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) by placing petitioner in the RMHU longer than three days without the requisite findings under the HALT Act.

However … we do find that the disciplinary sanctions, as written, violated the SHU Exclusion Law as set forth in Correction Law § 401. To that end, Correction Law § 401 provides that “[a]n incarcerated individual . . . shall not be sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct [in an RMHTU], or removed from the unit and placed in segregated confinement or a[n RRU (residential rehabilitation unit)], except in exceptional circumstances where such incarcerated individual’s conduct poses a significant and unreasonable risk to . . . safety . . . and . . . has been found to have committed an act or acts defined in [Correction Law § 137 [k] [6] [ii]]” (Correction Law § 401 [5] …). “Because the statute is phrased in the disjunctive” … , DOCCS must find that exceptional circumstances existed and a Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) act occurred if either 1) the incarcerated individual is sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct on the unit or 2) the incarcerated individual is removed and placed in segregated confinement or an RRU. Here, the former applies as petitioner was sanctioned, in writing, with segregated confinement in the RMHU but was not found, in a written determination, to have committed an act pursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii), a fact which is uncontested by either party. Thus, the written disciplinary sanction was in violation of the SHU Exclusion Law. Therefore, the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon petitioner must be annulled. Matter of Walker v Commissioner, N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 02834, Third Dept 5-8-25

 

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