Chenier v. Richard W.
| Decision Date | 11 November 1993 |
| Citation | 606 N.Y.S.2d 143,82 N.Y.2d 830,626 N.E.2d 928 |
| Parties | , 626 N.E.2d 928 In the Matter of Yves CHENIER, as Director of Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Appellant, v. RICHARD W., a Patient Admitted to Manhattan Psychiatric Center, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for entry of a judgment in accordance with this memorandum.
Respondent was originally admitted to petitioner hospital as a voluntary patient. When respondent demanded to be released, petitioner brought this proceeding, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.13, for an order allowing it to retain respondent on an involuntary basis. After hearing testimony, the court agreed that retention was appropriate but expressed concern about what it perceived to be hostility toward respondent on the part of his assigned psychiatrist. Accordingly, when it granted the requested retention order, the court added a direction that respondent should be assigned to a different psychiatrist and that he be left on an "open ward" rather than some more restrictive treatment setting.
On petitioner's appeal, the Appellate Division rejected the contention that the court had exceeded its authority under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.13(b) by imposing treatment-related conditions as part of its retention order. In ruling against petitioner on this point, the Court invoked the parens patriae responsibility of the courts to oversee the treatment of psychiatric patients and the judiciary's concomitant duty to ensure that such patients are treated in the least possible restrictive setting (184 A.D.2d 321, 584 N.Y.S.2d 832). We now reverse and hold that the trial court exceeded the authority conferred by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.13(b).
We note at the outset that the proceeding before us is now moot, since the 60-day retention order that is the subject of this appeal has expired and there are no indications that either party is still being affected in some way by that order. Nonetheless, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v. DeLaney
... ... or novel, likely to recur and capable of evading review" ( Maul , 14 N.Y.3d at 507, 903 N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 ; see also Chenier v. Richard W. , 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 606 N.Y.S.2d 143, 626 N.E.2d 928 [1993] [holding that an "appeal should be retained (when) it satisfies the ... ...
-
Johnson v. Pataki
...the mootness doctrine it must be demonstrated that all three elements apply in the action (see, e.g., Matter of Chenier v. Richard W., 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 606 N.Y.S.2d 143, 626 N.E.2d 928 [stating that appeal may be retained if it satisfies "the three critical conditions to the mootness exc......
-
Dixon v. Cnty. of Albany
... ... Matter of Chenier v. Richard W., 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 606 N.Y.S.2d 143, 626 N.E.2d 928 [1993] ; Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d at 715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 ... ...
-
People v. Munsey
... ... v. Ford, 92 N.Y.2d 500, 505–506, 683 N.Y.S.2d 150, 705 N.E.2d 1191;see Matter of Chenier v. Richard W., 82 N.Y.2d 830, 832, 606 N.Y.S.2d 143, 626 N.E.2d 928;Matter of Anthony H. [Karpati], 82 A.D.3d 1240, 1241, 919 N.Y.S.2d 214) ... ...