Anonymous, In re

• Decision Date: 24 February 1972
• Parties: Application for the Commitment of ANONYMOUS, an Alleged Dangerously Mentally Ill Patient to Matteawan State Hospital.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 542

329 N.Y.S.2d 542

69 Misc.2d 181

Application for the Commitment of ANONYMOUS, an Alleged

Dangerously Mentally Ill Patient to Matteawan

State Hospital.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part II.

Feb. 24, 1972.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., New York City (Sall Sidoti, and Amy Juvilier, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for petitioner.

Simon Rosenzweig, Director, Mental Health Information Service, First Judicial Dept., New York City by June A. Resnick, of counsel, for respondent.

ARNOLD L. FEIN, Justice.

Anonymous is involuntarily committed to Manhattan State Hospital (Manhattan State), a hospital under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene, as a civil patient, on a 'two physician certificate', as mentally ill and suitable for care and treatment under Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Sec. 72.

As defined in MHL Sec. 2:

'8. A 'mentally ill person' means any person afflicted with mental disease to such an extent that for his own welfare or the welfare of others, or of the community, he requires care and treatment.'

Manhattan State now applies for an order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Sec. 85, committing Anonymous to Matteawan State Hospital (Matteawan), a hospital under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction, upon the ground that he is 'dangerously mentally ill'.

MHL Sec. 85 requires the court to determine, after a hearing, whether the patient is '* * * so dangerously mentally ill that his presence in such a hospital (State hospital under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene) is dangerous to the safety of other patients therein, the officers or employees thereof, or to the community * * *.' (MHL Sec. 85(1)). 'If it be determined that such person is dangerously mentally ill, the judge Shall forthwith issue his order hospitalizing him in the Matteawan state hospital * * *' (MHL Sec. 85(4)), (emphasis supplied).

Anonymous, represented by the Mental Health Information Service (MHL Sec. 88), and its counsel, objects to being transferred to Matteawan, upon the grounds that: (1) he is not 'dangerously mentally ill', and, (2) even if he is found to be 'dangerously mentally ill', his transfer would violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the Federal and State constitutions.

At the hearing it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that, due to his mental illness, Anonymous committed several assaults and assaultive acts while in Manhattan State, including a very serious assault upon an attendant, thus endangering the safety of other patients and employees of the hospital. Accordingly, it is found that Anonymous is 'dangerously mentally ill' within the meaning of the statute.

The issue remains whether Anonymous is denied the equal protection of the law and due process because the statute directs that, upon finding that he is 'dangerously mentally ill', the judge 'shall' issue an order 'hospitalizing' the patient in Matteawan.

The effect of MHL Sec. 85 is to separate civil mentally ill persons into two categories. Those who are 'dangerously mentally ill' are required to be transferred to Matteawan, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. Those who are not, although they may be 'dangerous' in another sense (MHL Sec. 76), are to be retained in civil mental hospitals, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene.

That there is a real distinction between the two classes of patients is manifest. That such differences may not only warrant but may even require variations in types and kinds of security, custody, care and treatment is patent. Respondent so concedes.

It is appropriate for the legislature to recognize and valid for it to legislate on the basis of such a distinction. However, such legislation must bear a reasonable and just relationship to the purpose sought to be achieved. (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1970, 10 L.Ed.2d 965; Gulf, Colorado & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150, 17 S.Ct. 255, 41 L.Ed. 666). The rights of the individual are unconstitutionally and unlawfully infringed and he is denied the equal protection of the law if the legislative classification requires that he and his class be treated differently than others on a basis not clearly and necessarily related to the constitutional state objective and interest to be served. (Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247, 5 L.Ed.2d 231).

The purpose of a transfer to Matteawan under MHL Sec. 85 is to place 'dangerously mentally ill' patients under conditions of maximum security so as to protect other patients, hospital personnel and the community. This gives primacy to the problems of security and custody and little or no recognition to the need of the patient for care and treatment.

Anonymous has not been charged with the commission of any crime, nor has he been involved in the criminal process, in any way. As characterized by his counsel, his only so-called 'crime' is being mentally ill, or as here found, 'dangerously mentally ill.' That a person is 'dangerously mentally ill' is neither a crime nor a basis for the denial of constitutional rights. Anonymous is confined, not as a convicted criminal, not as a person charged with a crime or as one who has had any involvement with the criminal process, but rather as a mentally ill civil patient in a civil hospital who requires custody, 'care and treatment' under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene. Transfer to Matteawan would change not only the place, but also the nature, of his confinement. Although the Department of Mental Hygiene has the right to visit and inspect its facilities (MHL Sec. 7), Matteawan is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. (Correction Law, Sec. 400(1, 4).)

A comparison of the duties of these Departments is revealing. 'The department of mental hygiene is charged with the execution of the laws relating to the custody, care And treatment of the mentally ill * * *.' (MHL Sec. 7(1), (emphasis supplied). The Department of Correction is primarily charged with the responsibility of maintaining prisons.

In addition, pursuant to Correction Law, Sec. 400(1):

'1. The department of correction shall maintain one or more hospitals, to be used Solely for the purpose of holding in custody and caring for such mentally ill persons hold under any other than a civil process as may be committed to the department by courts of criminal jurisdiction, or placed therein or transferred thereto by the commissioner of mental hygiene, and for such persons as may be committed thereto pursuant to the provisions of section eighty-five of the mental hygiene law, and for such convicted persons as may be declared mentally ill while undergoing sentence of imprisonment, or upon commitment as youthful offenders, juvenile delinquents or wayward minors at any of the various penal institutions of the state, and for all female convicts becoming mentally ill while undergoing sentence * * *' (emphasis supplied).

It is significant that the Mental Hygiene Law charges the Department of Mental Hygiene with 'treatment' of its patients, thus recognizing a right to treatment. (See MHL Secs. 71, 72, 75, 76, 78). No such duty is imposed on the Department of Correction by the Correction Law or the Mental Hygiene Law. Its hospitals are 'solely for the purpose of holding in custody and caring for such mentally ill persons * * *' (Correction L. Sec. 400(1); cf. MHL Secs. 11 and 11, subd. 2, practically excluding the Department of Mental Hygiene from services, duties and responsibilites respecting Matteawan.)

It cannot be disputed that involuntary incarceration in civil hospitals of mentally ill persons For treatment may legitimately and constitutionally be authorized by the legislature. It is quite another matter to direct that a mentally ill person, in custody involuntarily, be held, not in a civil hospital, but in an institution operated by the Department of Correction, the legal responsibilities of which are primarily the custody and care of criminals and those involved in the criminal process and with no legislative mandate for treatment of the mentally ill.

There are other differences, indicative of a prison setting. Greater restrictions are placed on persons held at Matteawan, including: (1) those relating to correspondence between inmates and relatives, friends, public officials and the Mental Health Information Service (Cf. Correction L. Sec. 413 and MHL Sec. 15 and 14 N.Y.C.R.R., Mental Hygiene, 21.1, 21.2 and 21.4); (2) those concerned with visitation by relatives and friends and access to the Mental Health Information Service (MHIS), (Cf. Correction L. Sec. 413 and 14 N.Y.C.R.R., Mental Hygiene, part 57).

The distinction between Matteawan and state civil mental hospitals has been recognized in a long line of New York and federal cases and in studies by individuals and committees, whose work and conclusions have been acknowledged by the courts. United States ex rel. Carroll v. McNeill, 294 F.2d 117 (2d Cir. 1961); Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 86 S.Ct. 760, 15 L.Ed.2d 620; Cf. People ex rel. Brown v. Johnston, 9 N.Y.2d 482, 215 N.Y.S.2d 44, 174 N.E.2d 725; People v. McCloud, 62 Misc.2d 1086, 310 N.Y.S.2d 772; Whitree v. State, 56 Misc.2d 693, 290 N.Y.S.2d 486; United States ex rel. Hill v. Johnston, D.C., 321 F.Supp. 818; Rept.Spec.Comm. on Commitment Procedures and the Law Relating to Incompetents, Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y., Mental Illness, Due Process and the Criminal Defendant, (Fordham Univ.Press, 1968); see also Morris, 'The Confusion of Confinement Syndrome: An Analysis of the Confinement of Mentally Ill Criminals and Ex-Criminals by the Department of Correction of the State of New York,' 17 Buffalo L.Rev. (1968) 651; Morris, 'The Confusion of Confinement Syndrome Extended: The Treatment of Mentally Ill 'Non-Criminal Criminals' in New York,' 18, Buffalo L.Rev. (1969) 393....