You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
,

THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED THAT JUSTICE DD, A SEVERELY DISABLED MAN, REMAIN AT HIS CURRENT PLACEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT BE MOVED TO A NEW PLACEMENT IN NEW YORK; THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (OPWDD), NEARLY A YEAR LATER, REJECTED THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION AND ORDERED THE NEW PLACEMENT; BECAUSE JUSTICE DD’S CONDITION HAD WORSENED DURING THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the determination of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD). The Commissioner of the OPWDD rejected the hearing officer’s findings and ordered that Justice DD, the disabled man, be removed from his current placement in Massachusetts and placed in New York. The Third Department held that the nearly one-year delay between the hearing officer’s recommendation that Justice DD remain placed in Massachusetts and the Commissioner’s rejection of the recommendation, during which Justice DD’s condition had deteriorated, required annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling:

… [D]espite the Legislature’s use of the word “shall” in specifying that respondent [the Commissioner] is to issue a determination within 30 days of adjournment of the hearing, this language was merely directory based upon the absence of any “specific consequence to flow from the administrative agency’s failure to act in violation of the time limit” … .

“When an administrative body fails to comply with procedural provisions that are merely directory, relief will be granted only if petitioners show that substantial prejudice resulted from the noncompliance” … . We find that petitioners have made such a showing here and, as a result, respondent “must face the consequences of [her] delays” … . Matter of Hannah DD. v Neifeld, 2024 NY Slip Op 05167, Third Dept 10-17-24

Practice Point: The regulation that requires the Commissioner of the OPWDD to make a ruling on the placement of a disabled person within 30 days of the adjournment of the hearing is merely “directory,” not “mandatory.” However, if, as here, the failure to issue the ruling within 30 days results in prejudice to the disabled person, the delay is a valid ground for annulment of the Commissioner’s ruling.​

 

,

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER VIOLATED RULES IMPOSED BY THE “STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION” (SIST) REGIMEN, HE DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY DANGEROUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFINED AND SHOULD BE RELEASED AND MANAGED UNDER “SIST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, although respondent sex offender violated some of the rules associated with his released into the community, the violations were not related to sexual behavior. Therefore respondent should not be confined and should be released to the community and managed under SIST (strict and intensive supervision):

It is undisputed that, during the relevant period, respondent made no sexual threats, did not approach any treatment staff in a sexual manner, and did not express any sexual impulses or urges. We agree with our sister department that “in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on the State to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender’s ability to control his sexual behavior” … . “A mere tendency to engage in risky or socially undesirable conduct — even if that conduct provides an opportunity for, or increases the likelihood of, sexual offending — is quintessentially insufficient to establish ‘inability’ under the Michael M. formulation” (George N., 160 AD3d at 31 …). Finally, a respondent’s mere struggling with sexual urges is insufficient to show inability to control … . Matter of State of New York v Anthony R., 2024 NY Slip Op 03392, First Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: A sexual offender who has not exhibited any dangerous sexual behavior under SIST should be released and management under SIST should be continued. Confinement is not justified by non-sexual SIST violations.

 

, , , ,

IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY WARRANTING CIVIL MANAGEMENT, THE JUDGE CONFLATED TWO DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS, ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT A MENTAL ABNORMALITY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY A CONSTELLATION OF CONDITIONS, DISEASES AND DISORDERS, AND IMPROPERLY RELIED ON OUTSIDE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over an extensive dissenting opinion, reversing Supreme Court and ordering a new trial, determined several errors by the judge in this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding tainted the judge’s finding that the state had not proven respondent sex offender suffered from a mental abnormality and required civil management:

This article 10 proceeding arose out of respondent Richard V.’s 2002 conviction of rape in the first degree. In October 2001, respondent and an accomplice posed as plumbers to gain entry to the apartment of a female acquaintance. After the woman brought them inside, respondent subdued her with pepper spray, restrained her, repeatedly attacked her, threatened to kill her, and twice violently raped her.* * *

The sole issue at the bench trial was whether respondent suffers from a mental abnormality that “predisposes [him] to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense” resulting in “having serious difficulty [] controlling such conduct” … . At the second stage of an article 10 proceeding — the dispositional phase — the standard is whether a respondent has “such an inability to control his behavior that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” …

There can be little dispute that Supreme Court conflated the applicable legal standards. * * *

… Supreme Court committed reversible error in finding that the State could not use a “constellation” of conditions, diseases, and disorders to establish that respondent has a mental abnormality. * * *

Supreme Court’s extensive usage of outside research blurred the lines between the roles of judge and counsel, depriving the parties of the opportunity to respond … . Matter of State of New York v Richard V., 2024 NY Slip Op 02158, First Dept 4-23-24

Practice Point: When a judge does outside research to inform the decision, the parties are deprived of the opportunity to respond.

 

, , , , ,

SM STABBED INFANT PLAINTIFF SHORTLY AFTER BEING TREATED BY DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WHICH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DETAIN OR REPORT SM; ALTHOUGH SM DID NOT WAIVE THE PATIENT-PHYSICIAN PRIVILEGE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF SM’S MEDICAL RECORDS AND DISCLOSURE OF ANY RELEVANT NONMEDICAL INFORMATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the demand for disclosure of SM’s medical records was properly denied because SM had not waived the physician-patient privilege, but the request for an in camera review of the records for nonmedical information should have been granted. SM has been treated by defendant New York City Health + Hospital/Lincoln Medical Center (NYCHH) shortly before SM stabbed infant plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged NYCHH should have reported SM and detained her or taken some other measures to protect infant plaintiff:

Infant plaintiff and her father allege that NYCHH’s employees negligently treated SM when she presented to the hospital on April 26 and April 27, 2016, shortly before she stabbed the infant plaintiff and brother, resulting in the brother’s death. They allege that SM had a history of mental illness for which she had been treated by NYCHH on “scores of previous occasions,” and that NYCHH failed to detain SM, call a report to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, or “take any other action to protect” the infant plaintiff. SM, who is currently incarcerated, has not waived the physician-patient privilege and is believed to be unable or unwilling to do so.

Supreme Court properly determined that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13(c)(1) does not apply to allow disclosure of SM’s hospital records in the interests of justice, absent SM’s consent or express or implied waiver of the physician-patient privilege provided by CPLR 4504, 4507 … . … Supreme Court should have granted plaintiffs’ alternative request for in camera review to determine whether the records include information of a nonmedical nature, such as observations of SM’s conduct, language, and appearance and factual matters, which is subject to disclosure … . S.M. v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 01689, First Dept 3-26-24

Practice Point: Although medical records are protected from disclosure by the patient-physician privilege, relevant nonmedical, factual information in the records may be disclosed pursuant to an in camera review.

 

, , ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MUST BE CONDUCTED 30 DAYS BEFORE DEFENDANT’S RELEASE FROM CONFINEMENT, REGARDLESS WHETHER THE STATE IS CONSIDERING OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF INSTITUTING CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Curran, over a comprehensive two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that the sex offender risk-level assessment proceedings must be held 30 days prior to a defendant’s release from confinement, regardless whether the state is considering instituting, or already has instituted, proceedings to civilly commit the defendant pursuant to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SORA):

The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) provides that a sex offender “shall” be classified into one of three risk level categories “[30] days prior to discharge, parole or release” (Correction Law § 168-n [2]). The central question presented by these appeals is whether, for purposes of SORA, this deadline is properly measured from the date an offender is released from confinement by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), despite pending or contemplated proceedings to civilly commit the offender under the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). We hold that, under a plain reading of SORA, the 30-day deadline for conducting a risk level classification hearing must be measured from an offender’s release by DOCCS upon the completion of a prison sentence, irrespective of whether the state is considering instituting, or has already instituted, proceedings under SOMTA. We further hold that offenders are not denied due process by having a SORA hearing at a time when they may be civilly committed under SOMTA. People v Boone, 2024 NY Slip Op 00928, CtApp 2-22-24

Practice Point: SORA risk-level-assessment proceedings are to be held 30 days prior to defendant’s release from confinement and cannot be delayed because the state is considering or has instituted proceedings for civil commitment.

 

, , ,

EVEN WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE DEFENDANT LACKS THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDINGS, THE RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE WITHOUT AN INDEPENDANT ASSESSMENT OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CAPACITY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannaturo, over a two-judge dissenting opinion by Judge Rivera, and a dissent by Judge Halligan, determined the SORA risk-level proceedings can proceed without an assessment of the defendant’s mental health, even where, as here, there is a possibility defendant make lack the capacity to fully comprehend the risk-level proceedings:

The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires that every person convicted of a sex offense be given a risk-level classification corresponding to their assessed likelihood of recidivism and potential danger to the community. This risk level, in turn, determines the scope of information available to the public concerning the offender. To protect against erroneous classification, judicial determination of an offender’s risk level can occur only after the offender has been provided notice, counsel, disclosure of relevant information, and an opportunity to object and present evidence at a hearing, at which the People must prove the appropriateness of the classification by clear and convincing evidence. An offender’s risk level is also subject to re-evaluation on an annual basis.

The primary question on this appeal is whether due process precludes a court from determining a sex offender’s risk level when there is a possibility that the offender—although represented by counsel and provided the other protections listed above—may lack capacity to fully comprehend risk-level assessment proceedings. We hold that the many safeguards already provided under SORA minimize the risk of inaccurate risk-level classification and adequately balance the competing private and State interests in these civil proceedings. People v Watts, 2024 NY Slip Op 00926, CtApp 2-22-24

Practice Point: The safeguards in place for SORA-risk-level-assessment proceedings are sufficient to protect the rights of a defendant who may lack the capacity to comprehend the proceedings. There is no need for an independent assessment of defendant’s mental capacity before making the risk-level assessment.

 

,

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.

 

, ,

THE PATIENT IN A PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY DID NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVE HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS PROCEEDING TO PROVIDE TREATMENT WITHOUT HER CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Susan K., a psychiatric patient, did not voluntarily waiver her right to counsel in this proceeding to provide treatment without her consent:

… [T]he petitioner commenced this proceeding for permission to administer electro-convulsive therapy and various proposed psychotropic drugs to Susan K., a patient at a psychiatric facility, without her consent. Following a hearing, at which the Supreme Court permitted Susan K. to proceed pro se, the court issued an order authorizing the petitioner to administer the proposed course of treatment over Susan K.’s objection. Susan K. appeals. * * *

Supreme Court did not discuss with Susan K. the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se, did not apprise Susan K. “of the ‘importance of the lawyer in the adversarial system of adjudication,'” and did not elicit an acknowledgment that Susan K. understood the perils of self-representation … . Because the court failed to conduct a sufficiently searching inquiry of Susan K. to ensure that her waiver of the right to counsel was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, we must reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court … for a new hearing and a new determination after proper advisements and inquiry into Susan K.’s understanding of the consequences of self-representation. Matter of Susan K. (Hamilton), 2023 NY Slip Op 06369, Second Dept 12-13-23

Practice Point: Here a psychiatric patient represented herself in a proceeding seeking to provide treatment without her consent. The judge did not make sure the patient understood the dangers of self-representation. Matter remitted.

 

, ,

THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS AWARDED THE GUARDIAN OF DECEDENT’S PERSON AND PROPERTY; THE EXECUTOR WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CPLR 408 IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the executor of decedent’s estate (Oppedisano) was entitled to a hearing and discovery with respect to the fess and disbursements awarded to the guardian of decedent’s person and property:

… [T]here are disputed issues of fact as to the accuracy and completeness of the guardian’s final account, and whether the guardian failed to adequately investigate the alleged misappropriation of the decedent’s assets and should be denied fees and/or surcharged for breaching his fiduciary duties. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in denying Oppedisano’s objections to the guardian’s final account without conducting a hearing … .

Pursuant to CPLR 408, leave of court generally is required for disclosure in a special proceeding … . Insofar as discovery tends to prolong a case, and therefore is inconsistent with the summary nature of a special proceeding, such disclosure is granted only where it is demonstrated that there is need for such relief … . When leave of court is granted, disclosure takes place in accordance with CPLR 3101(a), which generally provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action” … . The Court of Appeals has interpreted the phrase “material and necessary” liberally as requiring, upon request, disclosure “of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” … . * * *

Oppedisano demonstrated that the requested disclosure was material and necessary to establishing his objections that the guardian’s final account was inaccurate and/or incomplete and that the guardian breached his fiduciary duties and should be denied fees and/or surcharged, and there was no contravening demonstration that the proposed discovery would be prejudicial or unduly burdensome, would violate confidentiality, or would unduly delay the case. Matter of Giuliana M. (DeCarolis), 2023 NY Slip Op 05262, Second Dept 10-18-23

Practice Point: Here the executor was entitled to a hearing on his objections to the fees and disbursements awarded decedent’s guardian and was entitled to discovery pursuant to CPLR 408. In a special proceeding discovery is by leave of court.

 

,

THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT MADE AN INFORMED DECISION TO WAIVE A VIABLE INSANITY DEFENSE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT VACATED THE PLEA AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT; DEFENDANT WAS RETURNED TO AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UNDER A CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, vacating defendant’s plea and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s plea was invalid because it was not clear he made an informed decision to waive a viable insanity defense:

As the People concede, the circumstances of this unique case warrant vacating the plea and dismissing the indictment. The plea allocution did not address whether defendant was making an informed decision to waive a potentially viable insanity defense … , and the record as a whole casts significant doubt on defendant’s mental competence and ability to understand the proceedings or the terms of his plea … .

Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is dismissal rather than a remand for further proceedings. Among other things, this 68-year-old, severely mentally ill defendant lives in a secured unit of an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order. People v Cosme, 2023 NY Slip Op 05207, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: Here it was apparent defendant suffered from mental health issues. The plea was vacated and the indictment dismissed because the allocution did not make it clear that defendant had made an informed decisions to waive a viable insanity defense. Defendant was returned to an assisted living facility under a civil guardianship order.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy