You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
, ,

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT’S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel when counsel conceded that defendant had a dangerous mental disorder requiring civil confinement. There was no strategic justification for waiving a CPL 330.20 hearing to determine which treatment/confinement track was appropriate for defendant:

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners (CPL 330.20[2]), who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[5]).

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant's mental condition (CPL 330.20[6]…).

The track is significant because it determines the level of the defendant's confinement and treatment. Track one is based on a finding of “dangerous mental disorder,” meaning that the defendant suffers from a “mental illness,” and that “because of such condition he currently constitutes a physical danger to himself or others” (CPL 330.20[1][c]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[20] [defining “mental illness”]). Track two is based on a finding of “mentally ill,” without a dangerous mental disorder (CPL 330.20[1][d]). Track three is based on a finding of not mentally ill (CPL 330.20[7]).

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law”… . Thus, track designation is “vitally important in determining the level of judicial and prosecutorial involvement in future decisions about an acquittee's confinement, transfer and release” … . People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 06634, First Dept 10-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20  (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))/NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER, CIVIL CONFINEMENT, ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY DID NOT PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER AND THEREBY EFFECTIVELY WAIVING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TRACK FOR DEFENDANT'S TREATMENT-CIVIL CONFINEMENT(FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, over a concurring opinion, determined that the decision to allow the withdrawal of life support from an 80-year-old developmentally disabled person (M.G.), who was in a vegetative state, did not violate M.G.'s right to equal protection under the law. Although M.G. had died, the appeal was considered as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

This is an appeal from an order that authorized petitioner physician, after a hearing pursuant to the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act (SCPA-1750-b), to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a developmentally disabled person (M.G.), in accordance with the decision of his guardian. Applying SCPA 1750-b's best interests standard, Supreme Court granted the order over the objection of Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) that a meaningful inquiry into M.G.'s end-of-life wishes should have been conducted because M.G. had some prior capacity to make health care decisions … . This case presents a similar equal protection claim to the one this Court rejected in [Matter of Chantel Nicole R. (Pamela R.) 34 AD3d 99]: whether treating an intellectually and developmentally disabled person who had some prior capacity to make health care decisions differently from a previously competent, non-disabled person violates the equal protection rights of the intellectually and developmentally disabled person. In Chantel, we concluded that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, because intellectually and developmentally disabled persons are not similarly situated to once competent persons and that the disparate treatment of the SCPA 1750-b was rationally related to a “legitimate [government] interest in advancing the right of [intellectually and developmentally disabled] persons to be free from prolonged suffering” … . … [w]e reject the equal protection challenge in this case as well. * * *

MHLS moved to summarily dismiss the petition, arguing that petitioner should proceed under article 29-CC of the Public Health Law and not SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was previously found to have capacity to request life-sustaining treatment, and thus a meaningful inquiry into his end-of-life wishes should control, rather than merely a “best interests” analysis, and that proceeding otherwise would violate his equal protection rights. Dr. Sloane, however, argued that the application was properly brought under SCPA 1750-b, since M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state, lacked capacity to make health care decisions, was developmentally disabled with a full-scale IQ of 47, had no advanced directives in place, and had not discussed his wishes with his guardian, who lived in Chicago, or anyone at his community residence. * * *

… [W]e are satisfied that Supreme Court's decision with regard to M.G. was consistent with SCPA 1750-b's requirements for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The undisputed medical evidence establishes that before his demise, M.G. was in a permanent vegetative state; he suffered from multiple organ failure of the lungs, kidneys, and brain. M.G. had no neurologic function and did not respond to stimuli or breathe without a ventilator. The medical expert's opinion was that the need for hemodialysis, the chest tubes, and ventilation were ongoing, that M.G.'s lack of cognitive ability could not be cured, and that there was no chance of meaningful neurological recovery. It was thus abundantly clear that M.G. was completely unable to interact with his environment, and that the medical probability that he would ever return to a cognitive sentient state, as distinguished from a chronic vegetative existence, was virtually non-existent. Any medical treatment administered would have provided minimal, if any, benefit and would only have postponed M.B.'s death rather than improve his life. In short, M.G.'s condition was irreversible, and treatment would have imposed an extraordinary burden on him… . The best interests of the patient under SCPA 1750-b embraces not only recovery or the avoidance of pain but also a dignified death. The guardian's decision conformed with the obligation to promote the patient's well-being, and to the extent possible, the decision of M.G. himself. Matter of Sloane v M.G., 2018 NY Slip Op 05800, First Dept 8-16-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/LIFE SUPPORT  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT ((DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED  (DECISION TO WITHDRAW LIFE SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED MAN IN A VEGETATIVE STATE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN SURROGATE'S COURT PROCEDURE ACT 1750-b DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW (FIRST DEPT))

,

SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Surrogate’s Court, determined that the petition under the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act seeking the appointment of a guardian should have been granted. Petitioner is the sister of a severely disable person, Anna. Petitioner established Anna could not care for herself and the appointment was necessary to manage Anna’s affairs. Surrogate’s Court erroneous dismissed the petition, finding that it should have been brought under the Mental Hygiene Law:

Pursuant to article 17-A of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act, “the court is authorized to appoint a guardian of the person [who is intellectually disabled] . . . if such appointment . . . is in the best interest of the person who is intellectually disabled.” Under the statutory scheme, a person is intellectually disabled if that person has been certified by, among other possibilities, one licensed physician and one licensed psychologist “as being incapable to manage him or herself and/or his or her affairs by reason of intellectual disability and that such condition is permanent in nature or likely to continue indefinitely” … .

Here, the record establishes that Anna is intellectually disabled within the meaning of Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act article 17-A. Further, the record also establishes that it would be in Anna’s best interest to have the petitioner appointed as her guardian. The record shows that Anna is incapable of providing for her most basic needs and that in the absence of court-authorized guardianship, the petitioner, Anna’s only sibling, is unable to adequately manage Anna’s affairs. Nothing in the record suggests that the petitioner is unqualified to act as Anna’s guardian. To the contrary, despite the legal limitations she has encountered, the petitioner has been managing Anna’s affairs and providing for Anna since their parents’ deaths. Matter of Anna F., 2018 NY Slip Op 05590, Second Dept 8-1-18

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP  (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (GUARDIANSHIP, SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT))

EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the petition for an the appointment of a guardian for Fritz, a person suffering from schizophrenia, should not have been granted on the evidence presented:

The Supreme Court may appoint a guardian for a person if the court determines that the appointment is necessary to provide for the person’s personal needs or to manage his or her property and financial affairs, and the person either agrees to the appointment or is incapacitated … . In determining whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary, the court must consider the report of a court evaluator as well as the sufficiency and reliability of resources that may be available to provide for personal needs or property management absent the appointment of a guardian … . A determination of incapacity must be based on clear and convincing evidence and must consist of a determination that a person is likely to suffer harm because he or she is unable to provide for personal needs or property management and cannot adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of such inability … . Moreover, a guardian should be appointed only as a last resort, where no available resources or other alternative will adequately protect the alleged incapacitated person … .

Here, the evidence at the hearing consisted only of the petitioner’s (Fritz’s mother’s) testimony regarding Fritz G.’s mental illness, and a cursory report and testimony of the court evaluator, who had only one brief conversation with Fritz G. by telephone. This evidence failed to establish that Fritz G. was incapacitated. Moreover, the Supreme Court failed to consider less restrictive options than appointment of a guardian. Accordingly, that branch of the petition which was to have the petitioner appointed as the guardian of the person of Fritz G. should have been denied. Nevertheless, it was clear from the petitioner’s testimony that Fritz G. is in need of assistance, and the parties’ attorneys specifically mentioned the possibility of assisted outpatient treatment to address those needs. The petitioner’s failure to establish, on this record, the necessity of Mental Hygiene Law article 81 guardianship does not preclude her from seeking any appropriate assistance for Fritz G. Matter of Fritz G., 2018 NY Slip Op 05592, Second Dept 8-1-18

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT))/GUARDIANSHIP (EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF MOTHER AS GUARDIAN OF FRITZ, A PERSON SUFFERING FROM SCHIZOPHRENIA, HOWEVER MOTHER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING ANY APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE FOR FRITZ (SECOND DEPT))

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the respondent’s sex offender management proceeding should be held in a closed courtroom and the record should be sealed to protect the identities of the victims in this high profile sex offense case:

Here, Supreme Court has taken steps to preserve the victims’ anonymity that include orders directing the media to withhold their names, sealing the trial record and granting anonymity to respondent. Nevertheless, our review of the factual details that may be discussed by petitioner’s experts persuades us that, in this particular case, media coverage of a public trial could well lead to the identification of the victims in the media, on the Internet or by those who followed the high profile proceedings in the past. The risk is particularly acute in view of the online presence that permits many of today’s media outlets to disseminate news beyond their subscribers and their local geographic area, in a form that may foster public discussion in comments or on social media, and which then remains permanently available.

Generally, public policy disfavors “limitations on public access to court proceedings” … . However, the right to such access is not without limitation and “must be balanced against other interests which might justify the closing of the courtroom to the public” … . We note that Mental Health Law § 10.08 reflects the strong public policy in favor of protecting the confidentiality of victims of sex offenses by including provisions that prohibit or limit the disclosure of identifying information … . Further, the controlling regulation cites “the nature of the proceedings and the privacy of the parties” as factors that may justify closing the courtroom during civil management proceedings … . Upon balancing the competing interests, we find that — in the limited and particular circumstances presented here — there is a significant risk that a public trial may compromise the anonymity of respondent’s victims. Thus, good cause has been shown to close the courtroom to the public during respondent’s civil management trial … . Matter of State of New York v John T.. 2018 NY Slip Op 05012, Third Dept 7-5-18

​MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT))/COURTROOM CLOSURE (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT PROCEEDING IN THIS HIGH PROFILE CASE SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC TO PROTECT THE IDENTITIES OF THE VICTIMS (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID-REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, annulling the determination of the NYS Office for People with Developmental Disabilities, held that the petitioner demonstrated an intellectual disability qualifying her for Medicaid-reimbursed home and community based services:

In order to obtain Medicaid-reimbursed home and community based services, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she suffers from a “developmental disability.” An “intellectual disability” that originated before age 22, is expected to continue indefinitely, and constitutes a “substantial handicap” to the person’s ability to function normally in society, is a qualifying condition (Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[22] [a][1], [b], [c] and [d]). The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed 2013) (Manual) defines “intellectual disability” as a disorder characterized by, inter alia, (1) general deficits in areas such as reasoning, problem solving and abstract thinking and (2) deficits in adaptive functioning, such as how well the person meets community standards of personal independence and social responsibility as compared to others of similar age and social responsibility. The term “intellectual disability” replaced the term “mental retardation.”

Here, respondent’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence … . Rather, the record demonstrates that petitioner met the qualifications as all of the evaluations that were performed before petitioner was 22 years old demonstrated an I.Q. below 70, which was the rough cut off for normal intellectual function. Deficits in her adaptive functioning were also noted repeatedly over the years. Moreover, it was entirely speculative to opine that petitioner’s I.Q. would have been higher but for co-occurring conditions. Matter of Spencer-Cedeno v Zucker, 2018 NY Slip Op 03488, First Dept 5-15-18

​MEDICAID (INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY, PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW  (INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY, PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST DEPT))/INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (MEDICAID, PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY, MEDICAID, PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED AN INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY QUALIFYING HER FOR MEDICAID REIMBURSED HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, CONTRARY FINDING BY THE NYS OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ANNULLED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, as an exception to the mootness doctrine, determined a letter written by petitioner should have been interpreted as a demand to contest his involuntary confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law:

In light of petitioner’s release from involuntary confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) article 9, this appeal is moot, as petitioner concedes. However, we reach the merits because the appeal raises a substantial and novel issue that is likely to recur yet typically evades review … .We reject respondent’s argument that the issue raised in this proceeding is unlikely to recur … .

As respondent now concedes, the letter submitted by petitioner on the day he was involuntary admitted to Lincoln Hospital reasonably conveyed that he sought a “hearing on the question of need for involuntary care and treatment” (MHL § 9.31[a]), and should have been forwarded to the appropriate court “forthwith”… . The handwritten letter says, “I am falsely imprisoned and deprived of liberty,” in violation of certain United States Supreme Court decisions, “I demand a jury trial immediately,” and “I demand my lawyer.” To the extent the court found the request in this letter insufficiently clear or formal, because there were other, unrelated complaints raised in the letter or for any other reason, this was error. The letter should have been interpreted reasonably to effectuate the statute’s purpose of allowing patients to challenge their involuntary confinement on an expedited basis, as required by MHL § 9.31. Matter of State of N.Y. ex rel. Giffen v Hoffman, 2018 NY Slip Op 03462, First Dept 5-10-18

​MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (MOOTNESS, EXCEPTION TO, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/MOOTNESS (APPEALS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS, MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, (INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT, LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined respondent (defendant) did not receive effect assistance of counsel in the commitment proceedings following his plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease of defect (re: assault charges).

CPL 330.20 requires County Court to conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of psychiatric examination reports for the purpose of assigning an insanity acquittee to one of three “tracks” based upon his or her present mental condition … . “Track-one [acquittees] are those found by the trial judge to suffer from a dangerous mental disorder; i.e., a mental illness that makes them a physical danger to themselves or others. Track-two [acquittees] are mentally ill, but not dangerous, while track-three [acquittees] are neither dangerous nor mentally ill” … . County Court’s finding in this case placed respondent in track one, a status “significantly more restrictive than track two” … . “Track status, as determined by the initial commitment order, governs the acquittee’s level of supervision in future proceedings and may be overturned only on appeal from that order, not by means of a rehearing and review” … . Given the “vital[] importanc[e]” of track designation… , the initial commitment hearing was plainly “a critical stage of the proceedings during which respondent was entitled to the effective assistance of counsel, [requiring us to] consider whether counsel’s performance therein viewed in totality amounted to meaningful representation” …  We agree with respondent that counsel’s performance fell short of that standard.

By affirmatively stating at the initial hearing that she “was not contesting any findings” contained within the psychiatric reports, respondent’s counsel conceded that respondent had a dangerous mental disorder and, thus, implicitly consented to his confinement in a secure facility. Counsel did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports … , nor did counsel consult an expert on respondent’s behalf who may have offered a contrasting opinion as to his mental status or, at the very least, could have clinically assessed the examination reports and the approaches taken in reaching their ultimate conclusions … . Despite petitioner’s protestations to the contrary, there is no basis in this record to conclude that pursuit of any of these avenues — particularly cross-examination of the psychiatric examiners — would have been futile or otherwise destined for failure … . Under these circumstances, we are simply unable to discern any plausible strategy or legitimate explanation for counsel’s decision to completely acquiesce to the most severe track classification … . Matter of Matheson Kk., 2018 NY Slip Op 03195, Third Dept 5-3-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY ACQUITEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (ATTORNEYS, CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/INSANITY ACQUITTEE (CRIMINAL LAW, ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/COMMITMENT (CRIMINAL LAW, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, ATTORNEYS,  RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (CPL) 330.20 (COMMITMENT, INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RESPONDENT, WHO PLED NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 330.20 COMMITMENT PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION REPORTS (THIRD DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction by guilty plea was properly granted. Defendant demonstrated he was not informed of the possibility he would be subject to the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA) which could result in further confinement pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law upon the completion of his sentence:

… [T]he defendant, through evidence presented at the hearing, including his testimony, made the factual showing necessary to demonstrate that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary. When the defendant pleaded guilty, he had already been adjudicated a level three predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act … based on a prior conviction. In addition, … the defendant here was made the subject of a SOMTA proceeding. The defendant testified at the hearing that he would not have taken the plea bargain had he known of SOMTA. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant showed that “the prospect of SOMTA confinement was realistic enough that it reasonably could have caused him, and in fact would have caused him, to reject an otherwise acceptable plea bargain” … . People v Balcerak, 2018 NY Slip Op 03138, Second Dept 5-2-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT (SOMTA) (VACATE CONVICTION, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel  because counsel, after defendant pled not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, conceded defendant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder and thereby waived the required “track” hearing pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20 (a “critical stage” of the proceedings):

… [A]fter a court accepts a not responsible plea, it must issue an examination order for the defendant to be examined by two qualified psychiatric examiners … , who must submit to the court a report of their findings and evaluation regarding defendant’s mental condition … .

Critical to this procedure is the requirement that the court conduct an initial hearing within 10 days after receipt of the psychiatric examination reports, in order to classify the defendant as “track one,” “track two,” or “track three” based on the defendant’s mental condition … . …

“The track designation places more dangerous acquittees under the purview of the Criminal Procedure Law, while less dangerous, though still mentally ill, acquittees are committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health and come under the supervision of the Mental Hygiene Law” … . …

At the initial hearing, the People bear the burden of proving “to the satisfaction of the court,” i.e., by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendant has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill … .

The initial hearing under CPL 330.20(6) is “a critical stage” of proceedings at which the defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel … . …

… [C]ounsel rendered ineffective assistance when he conceded at the plea proceeding that defendant was a danger to himself and society, and waived defendant’s right to an initial hearing before reviewing the psychiatric examination reports which had not yet been prepared for the court. Further, at the proceeding that followed the issuance of the reports, counsel simply relied on the psychiatrists’ reports and deferred to the court’s discretion. He did not call any witnesses or seek to cross-examine the psychiatrists who prepared the reports. Nor did counsel consult an expert on defendant’s behalf who might have offered a contrasting opinion. People v Darryl T., 2018 NY Slip Op 02280, First Dept 3-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OR MENTAL DISEASE OF DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION (CRIMINAL LAW, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

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