You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
,

OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH IS NOT REQUIRED TO ALLOW COUNSEL FROM MENTAL HEALTH LEGAL SERVICES TO PARTICIPATE IN TREATMENT PLANNING FOR A SEX OFFENDER (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissenting opinion, determined that a Mental Hygiene Legal Services (MHLS) attorney need not be granted permission to attend a treatment planning session for a client in the Sex Offender Treatment Program:

We hold that MHLS counsel is not entitled to be given an interview and an opportunity to participate in treatment planning simply by virtue of an attorney-client relationship with an article 10 respondent. * * *

… [T]he statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.10 (b) and 29.13 (b), as well as the relevant legislative history, support the conclusion that MHLS counsel was not intended to be included, as a matter of law, within the terms “authorized representative” or “significant individual.” Thus, OMH [Office of Mental Health] is not required, upon the respondent’s request, to provide an interview and an opportunity to participate in treatment planning to MHLS counsel who has only a professional, attorney-client relationship with an article 10 respondent. However, as OMH concedes, a facility has the discretion to permit MHLS counsel to participate in treatment planning and, in a particular case, it is possible that counsel could develop and demonstrate a sufficient personal relationship with a patient such that counsel would qualify as a “significant individual . . . otherwise concerned with the welfare of the patient,” entitled to participate therein. Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Sullivan, 2019 NY Slip Op 01122, CtApp 2-14-19

 

​

, ,

COURT ORDER WAS AMBIGUOUS AND ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE THE BASIS OF A CONTEMPT FINDING AND SANCTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a proceeding concerning the guardianship and trust assets of a disabled person, determined the trustee should not have been held in contempt based upon an ambiguous and erroneous court order and sanctions against the trustee were not justified in light of the ambiguity of and error in the order:

… [W]e find that, however uncooperative and dilatory the trustee was, [the court evaluator] did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the trustee violated a “lawful, clear and unequivocal order” when he did not pay the fee award from the unfunded, unexecuted 2006 SNT [supplemental needs trust] as directed in the ex parte order and when he instead cross-moved to vacate that order … . Moreover, given that the ex parte order referred to an incorrect SNT, which was not funded or executed, an error of which Supreme Court was made aware, the court should have granted the trustee’s motion to vacate the ex parte order … . …

A court may, in its discretion, award any party or counsel in a civil matter “costs in the form of reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable [counsel] fees, resulting from frivolous conduct” and “may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney” for frivolous conduct … . … However, such sanctions and costs may be imposed “only upon a written decision setting forth the conduct on which the award or imposition is based, the reasons why the court found the conduct to be frivolous, and the reasons why the court found the amount awarded or imposed to be appropriate” … . …  [G]iven … the fact that the court orders were ambiguous or directed payment out of an incorrect, unfunded SNT, the trustee’s conduct in response to those orders, much of it based upon the advice of counsel, was not shown to be frivolous … . Matter of James H., 2019 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-10-19

 

, , ,

HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMANENT STAY OF EVICTION WAS A PROPER ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED TENANTS PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Term, First Department, ruled that a hearing should be held to determine whether eviction proceedings should be permanently stayed. A guardian (GAL) had been appointed pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 81 for the disabled tenants who had not complied with stipulations for fumigation of the apartment to rid it of bed bugs. With the GAL’s help the apartment was eventually fumigated. Under the Fair Housing Act the tenants were entitled to accommodations for their disabilities. A hearing was required to determine whether a permanent stay of eviction was an appropriate accommodation:

Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as amended, it is unlawful to discriminate in housing practices on the basis of a “handicap” (42 USC § 3604[f][2][A]). Handicap is very broadly defined, and a person is considered handicapped and thereby protected under the FHA if he or she: 1. Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or 2. Has a record of such impairment, or 3. Is regarded as having such an impairment.

No specific diagnosis is necessary for a person to be “handicapped” and protected under the statute. In fact, the determination may even be based upon the observations of a lay person … . The appointment of an article 81 guardian for tenants sufficiently establishes that these tenants are “handicapped” within the meaning of the FHA, leading us to consider whether they are entitled to a reasonable accommodation. What is “reasonable” varies from case to case, because it is necessarily fact-specific  … . The overarching guiding factor, however, is that a landlord is obligated to provide a tenant with a reasonable accommodation if necessary for the tenant to keep his or her apartment. The ” refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford [the handicapped individual] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling'” is a discriminatory practice… . A landlord does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it puts other tenants at risk, but should consider whether such risks can be minimized … . Matter of Prospect Union Assoc. v DeJesus, 2018 NY Slip Op 09016, First Dept 12-27-18

 

, , ,

RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE MAY HAVE MISLED THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THEY COULD MAKE THEIR OWN LAY JUDGMENT, AS OPPOSED TO RELYING ON EXPERT OPINION, ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY IN THIS CIVIL MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING, ISSUE REVIEWED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, over a dissent, reversed the finding that defendant sex offender (Timothy R.) suffers from a mental abnormality and requires civil commitment and ordered a new trial. The jury sent out a note asking whether they must agree with the diagnosis of one of the experts to find defendant has a mental abnormality. The court, over defendant’s counsel’s objection, answered “no.” On appeal defendant argued that the jury was effectively told it could ignore the experts and come to their own judgment on the mental abnormality issue. Although that specific argument was not made below, and therefore was not preserved, the Second Department reviewed it in the interest of justice and held that the jury would have to agree with an expert’s diagnosis to find defendant suffered from a mental abnormality:

… [C]ontrary to the Supreme Court’s response to the jury note, in order to conclude that Timothy R. has a mental abnormality, the jury was required to accept expert testimony as to at least one diagnosis that meets the legal predicate for mental abnormality. When the court answered the note in the negative and reiterated to the jury the general instruction as to accepting or rejecting all or some of an expert’s testimony as it sees fit … , the jury could have been misled into relying solely upon its own lay opinion or so much of the expert testimony as relied upon nonpredicate diagnoses, without regard to the expert testimony, that Timothy R. has a congenital or acquired condition, disease, or disorder … . Matter of State of New York v Timothy R., 2018 NY Slip Op 08940, Second Dept 12-26-18

 

, , ,

HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GUARDIAN SHOULD BE APPOINTED FOR MOTHER IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, MOTHER SUFFERS FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined a guardian should have been appointed for mother in the proceeding which terminated her parental rights:

It is well settled that courts cannot “shut their eyes to the special need of protection of a litigant actually incompetent but not yet judicially declared such. There is a duty on the courts to protect such litigants”… . Indeed, “[t]he public policy of this State . . . is one of rigorous protection of the rights of the mentally infirm”… . Thus, ” where there is a question of fact . . . whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed, a hearing must be conducted’ ” … , and the failure to make such an inquiry once a meritorious question of a litigant’s competence has been raised requires remittal … .

… [W]e conclude that a meritorious question of the mother’s competence was raised. It is of no moment that the mother’s attorney did not move for the appointment of a guardian ad litem inasmuch as the court may make such an appointment on its own initiative (see CPLR 1202 [a] …). …

There is no dispute that the mother, who had been diagnosed with, inter alia, schizophrenia, had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals throughout her life. Indeed, at the time of the subject child’s birth, which was two years before this termination proceeding, the mother had been committed to a psychiatric unit after being found incompetent to stand trial in a criminal court. During the course of the hearing in this proceeding, the mother was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit, and the matter had to be adjourned until her release. Additionally, during the mother’s brief testimony upon resumption of the hearing, the court and the AFC [attorney for the child] had to interrupt her repeatedly inasmuch as her answers to questions were nonresponsive and, at times, completely nonsensical.

Given “the magnitude of the rights at stake [in a termination proceeding], as well as the allegations of mental illness” …, we conclude that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on whether a guardian ad litem should have been appointed for the mother. Matter of Jesten J.F. (Ruth P.S.), 2018 NY Slip Op 08812, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

ABSENT A FINDING THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCHARGE HER DUTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE GUARDIAN TO PAY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ASSISTED IN PREPARING THE FINAL ACCOUNT FROM HER OWN FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that, absent a showing of misconduct, the guardian of the property of an incapacitated person should not have been required to pay the accountant used to prepare the final account from her own funds:

A court is authorized to award “reasonable compensation” to a guardian (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.28[a]). The award of compensation “must take into account the specific authority of the guardian or guardians to provide for the personal needs and/or property management for the incapacitated person, and the services provided to the incapacitated person by such guardian” (id. ). However, “[i]f the court finds that the guardian has failed to discharge his or her duties satisfactorily in any respect, the court may deny or reduce the compensation which would otherwise be allowed” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.28[b]).

Here, since the Supreme Court did not find that the guardian failed to discharge her duties satisfactorily in any respect, the court should not have directed the guardian to pay the accountant’s fee from her own funds … . Matter of Ruby T. (Carrion), 2018 NY Slip Op 08314, Second Dept 12-5-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (ABSENT A FINDING THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCHARGE HER DUTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE GUARDIAN TO PAY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ASSISTED IN PREPARING THE FINAL ACCOUNT FROM HER OWN FUNDS (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ABSENT A FINDING THE GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF AN INCAPACITATED PERSON FAILED TO PROPERLY DISCHARGE HER DUTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE GUARDIAN TO PAY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ASSISTED IN PREPARING THE FINAL ACCOUNT FROM HER OWN FUNDS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined petitioner had the right to appeal a ruling which granted relief he had requested in the alternative but denied the more complete relief requested in the petition. The court further found that the evidence supported the finding that petitioner is a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality and required a regimen of strict and intensive superivsion and treatment (SIST):

… [W]e conclude that petitioner is aggrieved by the order because, although Supreme Court granted one of the forms of the relief he requested in the alternative, i.e., release under a regimen of SIST, the primary relief he sought was release to the community without conditions, and the denial of that part of the petition involved a substantial right of petitioner … . …

We … reject petitioner’s contention that basing the determination that he has a mental abnormality on a diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder does not comport with the requirements of due process. That diagnosis is contained in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual — Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Although there is limited case law concerning that diagnosis, the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that basing such a determination on the very similar former diagnosis of paraphilia not otherwise specified (paraphilia NOS) meets the requirements of due process … , and the diagnosis of unspecified paraphilic disorder has similar diagnostic requirements as the former diagnosis of paraphilia NOS. …

In addition, “to the extent that [petitioner] challenges the validity of [unspecified paraphilic disorder] as a predicate condition, disease or disorder,’ we need not reach that argument because he did not mount a Frye challenge to the diagnosis” … . Matter of Luis S. v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07852, Fourth Dept 11-16-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner sex offender was entitled to a Frye hearing to determine the efficacy of an “other specified paraphilic disorder” (OSPD) diagnosis:

… OSPD (nonconsent) is the primary diagnosis upon which respondent relied to demonstrate that petitioner suffered from a mental abnormality under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Citing the lack of specific diagnostic criteria, petitioner contends that this diagnosis is “junk science” that has not gained general acceptance in the scientific community and, therefore, cannot support a finding of mental abnormality. In support of his application for a Frye hearing, petitioner submitted, among other things, Singer’s affidavit, scientific literature in the form of professional articles discussing the controversial nature of PNOS (nonconsent) — the predecessor diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) — and questioning its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, as well as various trial court decisions that, following Frye hearings, have concluded that OSPD (nonconsent) is not a generally accepted diagnosis within the relevant psychiatric and psychological communities. In opposition, respondent tendered an attorney’s affidavit and three trial court decisions — two of which concluded that no Frye hearing was necessary — but no scientific literature or professional affidavits. Although we recognize that OSPD is a defined and recognized diagnosis in the Fifth Edition of the American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (hereinafter DSM) and that the Court of Appeals has recognized that PNOS — OSPD’s predecessor diagnosis — is sufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality (see State of New York v Shannon S., 20 NY3d 99, 107 [2012], cert denied 568 US 1216 [2013]), we note that Shannon S. did not determine the issue presently before us, i.e., whether the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis has received general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . * * *

… [G]iven the controversial nature of the OSPD (nonconsent) diagnosis, on the record before us, we conclude that Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a Frye hearing was improper. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Supreme Court to conduct a Frye hearing, addressing the question of whether the diagnosis of OSPD (nonconsent) has achieved general acceptance in the psychiatric and psychological communities … . Matter of Miguel II. v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07210, Third Dept 10-25-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))/FRYE HEARING (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDERS, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s petition requesting a de novo jury trial on whether defendant is mentally ill should have been granted. The First Department held that the exception to the mootness doctrine applied to allow appeal, the denial of the petition was appealable as of right, and the remarks of defense counsel and the testimony of the defense expert at the hearing to the effect defendant is mentally ill did not waive defendant’s right to a trial de novo:

This case satisfies the exception to the mootness doctrine because there is “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public; (2) a phenomenon typically evading review; and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues” … . Commitment and retention proceedings generally involve orders of short duration, which typically evade review … . Moreover, the issue before us is substantial, as it requires us to decide whether statements by defendant’s counsel and his expert could operate to deprive a defendant of his statutory right to demand a jury trial de novo on the “basic liberty issue” of whether he can be confined … . …

… [T]there can be no serious dispute that the order of the motion court, which denied defendant the opportunity to present his case before a jury, as provided for under CPL 330.20(16), affected a substantial right. * * * Since the motion court’s order affected a substantial right of defendant, we hold that his appeal is properly before us as one taken as of right under CPLR 5701(a)(2)(v). * * *

Here, defendant timely expressed his dissatisfaction with a recommitment order that was based on a threshold finding that he had a mental illness. Once defendant met those core requirements, he was entitled to a de novo trial at which a jury would decide whether he was mentally ill based on the evidence then existing. Matter of New York State Off. of Mental Health v Marco G., 2018 NY Slip Op 06998, First Dept 10-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CPL 330.20, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))/MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (APPEALS, CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 330.20, MENTAL ILLNESS, THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR A DE NOVO JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS MENTALLY ILL IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT AND THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE APPLIED AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENTS AND THE DEFENSE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT DEFENDANT WAS MENTALLY ILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO A DE NOVO TRIAL (FIRST DEPT))

POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT APPOINTED EVALUATOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly appointed a guardian for an incapacitated person, but should not have granted powers to the guardian over and above the powers recommended by the court-appointed evaluator:

Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) provides that “[i]f on or before the return date designated in the order to show cause the alleged incapacitated person or counsel for the alleged incapacitated person raises issues of fact regarding the need for an appointment under this article and demands a jury trial of such issues, the court shall order a trial by jury thereof.” Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11(f) further states that “[f]ailure to make such a demand shall be deemed a waiver of the right to trial by jury.” …

Nevertheless, the judgment must be modified since the broad powers granted to the appointed guardian are inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the guardian be granted “only those powers which are necessary to provide for personal needs and/or property management of the incapacitated person in such a manner as appropriate to the individual and which shall constitute the least restrictive form of intervention” (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[2]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.03[d]). Under the circumstances presented, the Supreme Court should have granted the guardian only those limited powers recommended in the report of the court-appointed evaluator. Matter of Heidi B. (Pasternak), 2018 NY Slip Op 06899, Second Dept 10-17-18

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