You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
,

Petitioner Did Not Demonstrate Need for Involuntary Assisted Outpatient Treatment/Case Presented an Exception to the Mootness Doctrine

The Second Department determined the petitioner did not demonstrate that Luis G met the criteria for involuntary assisted outpatient treatment (AOP).  By the time of the appeal, the order for involuntary AOP had expired.  The Second Department explained the exception to the mootness doctrine which allowed the court to rule in the matter:

Generally, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . “However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable” … .

* * * There is an issue as to whether the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner demonstrated that Luis G. met all the criteria for involuntary assisted outpatient treatment (hereinafter AOT), as set forth in Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60. This issue has a likelihood of recurrence, either between the petitioner and Luis G. due to his chronic mental illness, or between the petitioner and other patients who may be the subject of involuntary AOT proceedings. In addition, this issue would typically evade appellate review, as involuntary AOT orders have a maximum duration of six months unless extended by a subsequent court order (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60[j][2]; [k]). Further, the issue raised on appeal has not been the subject of prior appellate review and is substantial and novel … .

The petitioner failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Luis G. met the criteria of Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60(c)(4), as no evidence indicated that he was hospitalized twice during the 36 months prior to the filing of the petition for involuntary AOT, as required by statute (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.60[c][4][i], [j][2]). Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, during the 48 months prior to the filing of the petition for involuntary AOT, Luis G. engaged in any act of serious violent behavior toward himself or others, or threatened or attempted to cause serious physical harm to himself or others … . Matter of Walsh-Tozer v Luis G, 2014 NY Slip Op 04500, 2nd Dept 6-18-14

 

, , ,

Under Mental Hygiene Law, Claim Made for Payment from Nursing Home Resident’s Guardianship Account During Resident’s Life Had Priority over Claim by Department of Social Services After Resident’s Death

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined that a nursing home (Eastchester) which had submitted a claim for the resident’s (Shannon’s) care to the resident’s guardianship account during the resident’s life had priority over the Department of Social Services, which submitted a claim for the resident’s care (Medicaid) to the resident’s estate after death:

Eastchester, a skilled nursing facility, admitted Edna Shannon into its care in 2005. In 2008, due to Shannon’s need for assistance, and concerns about the proper handling of her finances by third parties, Eastchester commenced a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to have a guardian appointed for her person and property. It also filed an application for medical assistance for Shannon’s nursing home costs. In 2009, DSS determined that Shannon was eligible for Medicaid, effective September 1, 2008. By order and judgment entered April 24, 2009, Supreme Court appointed Family Service Society of Yonkers as her guardian. Among other things, the court conferred on Family Service Society the authority to pay Shannon’s nursing home expenses and to pay bills after her death. Shannon died in December 2011 at age 87. * * *

As Eastchester was to be paid out of the guardianship account before any funds passed to the estate, its claim had priority over DSS’s claim.  MHL § 81.44(d) provides that, within 150 days of the death of an incapacitated person, the guardian must serve on the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, or if none, the public administrator or chief fiscal officer, a statement of assets and notice of claim, and “except for property retained to secure any known claim, lien or administrative costs of the guardianship,” deliver all guardianship property to the personal representative, public administrator, or chief fiscal officer (emphasis added). Matter of Shannon, 2014 NY Slip Op 04452, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

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

 

, ,

Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

The Third Department determined the respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law 10.06 proceeding (called a SOMTA proceeding) to determine whether he, as a sex offender, should be committed to a secure mental health treatment facility, could not defeat the proceeding by renouncing his citizenship and leaving the country:

It is well established that “Congress has broad authority to set the conditions and procedures that an individual must satisfy in order to renounce his [or her] citizenship” … . In accord with its authority, Congress enacted 8 USC § 1481, which, in relevant part, provides that “[a] person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his [or her] nationality by voluntarily performing [certain enumerated] acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” … . A citizen seeking to renounce his or her nationality must make an application therefor and, generally, must be outside the United States to do so … . To this end, respondent argues that the SOMTA petition must be dismissed so that he may be released from DOCCS’s custody in order to leave the United States and return to Israel, where he will effectuate his expatriation… .

We flatly reject this argument, which presupposes, among other things, that respondent would actually exit this country if he were released from custod. Even if he did leave, the state is not required to bear the risk that petitioner — an experienced international fugitive — would not return to New York thereafter. In any event, at this juncture, respondent remains a United States citizen confined in New York who is a sex offender alleged to have a mental abnormality and in need of civil management, and petitioner continues to have a legitimate interest in protecting society from the risks he poses… . Matter of State of New York v Horowitz, 2014 NY Slip Op 05001, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

, ,

Where It Is Possible Jurors Relied On an Illegal Ground a General Verdict Must Be Set Aside, Even If Alternative Legal Grounds Were Provided to the Jury

The Second Department determined that the inclusion on the verdict sheet of an offense that was not a designated felony under Mental Hygiene Law 10.03 (f) warranted an new trial, even though no objection was raised:

Generally, where no objection to an alleged error is advanced at trial, the objection is unpreserved for appellate review … . However, the inclusion on the verdict sheet of a crime that was not a designated felony within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(f) presents such a fundamental error that the appellant’s failure to object does not bar our review of the issue in the exercise of discretion … . At trial, the State was required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was a detained sex offender who suffered from a mental abnormality (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[d]). “It is an established rule of Supreme Court jurisprudence that a general verdict of guilt must be set aside where the jurors in reaching their verdict may have relied on an illegal ground or on an alternative legal ground and there is no way of knowing which ground they chose” … . “Thus, the Supreme Court has consistently vacated general verdicts where one of the choices afforded to the jury was to find guilt on an unconstitutional theory. It has rejected the contention that the verdict should be upheld because the fact finder presumably based it on an alternative constitutional ground” … . Matter of State of New York v Todd L, 2014 NY Slip Op 04205, 2nd Dept 6-11-14

 

,

Supreme Court’s Finding Respondent Was No Longer Suffering from a Dangerous Mental Condition Reversed

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, over a partial dissent, determined Supreme Court erred in finding that the respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental condition and could be released from a secure psychiatric facility.  Respondent is now 74 years old and had stabbed a woman 20 years ago.  He refuses to take medication and he refused to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by the Office of Mental health. There were stark differences in the assessment of his mental condition presented at a hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.20.  The experts arguing for continued retention were named Simon-Phelan and Formica:

Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03(20) defines a mental illness as “an affliction with a mental disease or mental condition which is manifested by a disorder or disturbance in behavior, feeling, thinking, or judgment to such an extent that the person afflicted requires care, treatment and rehabilitation” (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20]).

Upon our review of the record, we find that the credible evidence established that the respondent suffers from a mental illness, the first element of a dangerous mental disorder (see CPL 330.20[1];[c]). Simon-Phelan and Formica opined that the respondent suffers from bipolar disorder, along with various personality disorders, whether narcissistic, grandiose, or antisocial. Most relevant, the respondent’s behaviors, consistently displayed over the past 20 years, as thoroughly documented throughout the record, are indicative of these disorders. These behaviors include his aggressive and violent acts, his abrasiveness when speaking to others, his refusal to follow rules, his inappropriate sexual advances, his inflated self-esteem, his high level of energy, his excessive writing, and his overzealousness with respect to litigation … . Although the categorization of the respondent’s mental illness has differed between mental health professionals, a number of professionals have drawn the same conclusions as Simon-Phelan and Formica, dating back as far as 1994. As one psychiatrist put it in 2003, the debate about whether the respondent’s “pathology is Axis I or Axis II or some combination thereof . . . can be carried on indefinitely,” but when one considers his symptomatic exacerbation, poor judgment, and poor impulse control, all of which continue to exist, he remains in “the category of dangerously mentally ill.” Matter of Marvin P, 2014 NY Slip Op 03690, 2nd Dept 5-21-14

 

, , , ,

Involuntary Mental Health Patient Should Not Have Been Released Pursuant to a Habeas Corpus Petition Without an “Examination Into the Patient’s Alleged Disability and Detention,” Despite the Hospital’s Untimely Request for Continued Detention (in Violation of the Mental Hygiene Law)/Appellate Court’s Ability to Hear a Moot Case Explained (Mootness Doctrine)

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, determined that immediate release of an involuntaty patient from a mental health hospital pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus because of the facility’s failure to comply with the Mental Hygiene Law provisions for continued detention was reversible error.  Supreme Court should have conducted an examination into the patient’s alleged disability and detention.  The court discussed the nature and origin of the habeas corpus petition and the relationship between a habeas corpus petition brought under the Mental Hygiene Law and under Article 70 of the CPLR (finding them to be in essence the same). In addition, the Second Department discussed the mootness doctrine which, under certain circumtances, allows an appellate court to hear  a moot case.  The habeas corpus petition here had been rendered moot by the patient’s release:

Generally, courts are precluded “from considering questions which, although once live, have become moot by passage of time or change in circumstances” …. . Typically, “an appeal will be considered moot unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment” … . However, an exception to the mootness doctrine permits a court to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to recur, typically evades review, and raises a substantial and novel question … .Here, the release of the patient renders this appeal academic. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to review the issues raised on this appeal pursuant to the exception to the mootness doctrine because the primary issue raised is an important one which implicates both the patient’s fundamental liberty interest and the State’s interest in protecting the mentally ill, and is one which is likely to recur. Further, the primary issue involved here may typically evade review because “[t]he Mental Hygiene Law contemplates that involuntary hospitalization in a mental health facility is often brief and temporary . . . [and the law] require[s] frequent periodic review of a patient’s status, and the release of the patient unless OMH is granted successive court orders authorizing retention” … . * * *

Here, the patient was initially involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 due to his alleged mental illness and, thereafter, the petition for a writ was filed on the patient’s behalf. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus was to determine whether the patient was being unlawfully detained (see CPLR 7002[a]… ). Therefore, in order to determine the cause and legality of the patient’s detention, the Supreme Court was required to examine the facts of the patient’s alleged mental disability and detention (see Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15[a], [b]; CPLR 7002). The Supreme Court’s failure to conduct the required examination constitutes reversible error. We note that the Hospital supported its untimely retention application with, inter alia, two certificates from the patient’s treating physicians. In those certificates, the physicians asserted that the patient was paranoid, unable to care for himself, and psychotic. Our determination should not be construed as an approval of the Hospital’s dilatory conduct in filing the retention application. There is no dispute that the Hospital failed to comply with Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. Under the circumstances presented, however, the remedy for such noncompliance is not the immediate release of a patient. We also caution that our reasoning should not be construed to authorize an unlimited violation of article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law so as to allow a patient to be involuntarily retained, without a hearing, indefinitely. People v Munsey, 2014 NY Slip Op 01782, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

, ,

Re: A Mental Hygiene Law Civil Commitment Proceeding for a Sex Offender, Failure to Give the Jury an Adequate Explanation of the Meaning of “Sex Offense” May Have Resulted in an Unsupported “Mental Abnormality” Finding

The Second Department determined the trial court committed reversible error by not, upon defense counsel’s request, giving a further instruction to the jury on the meaning of “sex offense” as part of the jury charge on mental abnormality. The jury found the appellant had committed a sexually motivated felony and suffers from a mental abnormality (re: civil commitment of a sex offender under the Mental Hygiene Law). The appellant had pled guilty to the burglary of a woman’s home. During the burglary the appellant allegedly had “touched that woman’s vagina and buttocks with a hard object.” At the “Mental Hygiene Law” trial, the State presented evidence of appellant’s sexual behavior in prison which did not constitute a sex offense enumerated under the Mental Hygiene Law. The jury may not have understood how to evaluate the “unenumerated” behavior under the Mental Hygiene Law:

Here, the State’s evidence consisted predominantly of instances of the appellant’s sexually inappropriate acts that would not constitute sex offenses under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Specifically, the State’s expert testified at length regarding instances in which the appellant masturbated while he could be observed by prison officers or by staff members while placed at a secure treatment facility, and his propensity to continue to act in a sexually improper manner. The appellant’s conduct, however, at most, might constitute the crime of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245), a class B misdemeanor, which is not one of the sex offenses enumerated under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. In light of the particular circumstances presented in this proceeding, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s request to issue an expanded charge to the jury containing supplemental information as to the specific statutory meaning of “sex offense,” so that the jury could make a proper evaluation of the evidence.…

[T]he Supreme Court’s failure to either provide the statutory definition of “sex offense” under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 or to inform the jury that there is a distinction between a predisposition to commit a “sex offense” and a predisposition to commit nonenumerated acts of sexual misconduct could have misled the jury into making a finding of mental abnormality, based solely upon the evidence of the appellant’s predisposition to commit any improper sexual conduct. Consequently, a new trial is required … . Matter of State of New York v Adrien S, 2014 NY Slip Op 01175, 2nd Dept 2-19-14

 

,

A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict and Intensive Supervision” under Article 10

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera (over a dissent), determined that, pursuant to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, a sex offender could either be confined or placed under strict and intensive supervision (SIST), not both.  Here the hearing court determined the People did not meet their burden demonstrating the offender (Nelson D) should be confined, but included confinement in a treatment facility (Valley Ridge) as part of strict and intensive supervision:

We conclude that article 10 provides for only two dispositional outcomes, confinement or an outpatient SIST regime. Therefore, we agree with Nelson D. that, absent a finding of the type of condition that statutorily subjects him to confinement, his placement at Valley Ridge constitutes involuntary confinement, in violation of the plain language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10.  We also agree that involuntary commitment, as part of a SIST plan, deprives Nelson D. of the statutorily proscribed procedures mandated for confinement under article 10. Matter the State of New York v Nelson D, 194, CtApp 11-26-13

 

, , ,

ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDINGS ARE CIVIL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THE COURT ANALYZED WHETHER RESPONDENT COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF AND WHETHER HE WAS AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE USING THE CRIMINAL LAW STANDARDS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, determined that Article 10 sex-offender commitment proceedings are civil in nature, but analyzed respondent’s request to represent himself and whether respondent received ineffective assistance under the criminal-law standards:

Supreme Court did not err in denying respondent’s request to proceed pro se. Assuming, without deciding, that a respondent in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding has the same right of self-representation as a criminal defendant …, respondent’s request here was denied based on his failure to meet two prongs of the three-prong test:

“A defendant in a criminal case may invoke the right to defend pro se provided: (1) the request is unequivocal and timely asserted, (2) there has been a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, and (3) the defendant has not engaged in conduct which would prevent the fair and orderly exposition of the issues” … .

Respondent made his request to proceed pro se only two business days before the second trial was scheduled to begin, which the court properly found untimely … . …The court properly denied his request based on … comments indicating that he would attempt to disrupt or prevent the orderly conduct of the trial …, along with the untimeliness of the request. …

Respondent was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Initially, we hold that while Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and that ineffective assistance of counsel may only be considered in civil litigation if extraordinary circumstances are present, the indefinite and involuntary nature of confinement that may result in this type of proceeding constitutes such an extraordinary circumstance … .

Applying the criminal standard, we must determine whether “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [the] particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” … . Matter of State of New York v Timothy BB., 2013 NY Slip Op 07774 [113 AD3d 18], Third Dept 11-21-13

 

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