Crawford v. State

• Decision Date: 29 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 58104-A,58104-A
• Citation: 401 N.Y.S.2d 307,60 A.D.2d 729
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: Adelyn J. CRAWFORD, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim)

Page 307

401 N.Y.S.2d 307

60 A.D.2d 729

Adelyn J. CRAWFORD, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. (Claim No. 58104-A.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Dec. 29, 1977.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah Jochnowitz, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

Gregoire & Sargent, New York City (Jesse Rothman, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before KANE, J. P., and MAHONEY, MAIN, LARKIN and MIKOLL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Appeal from so much of an order of the Court of Claims, entered May 11, 1976, as denied a motion to dismiss a claim against the State of New York.

Following claimant's arraignment on a charge of malicious mischief and forcible entry, the Justice of the Peace ordered claimant to be psychiatrically evaluated at Grasslands Hospital. It was determined that she was incapable of defending herself due to mental incompetency. Claimant was certified by the Dutchess County Court to be mentally ill pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law and ordered committed on April 6, 1955 to Harlem Valley State Hospital, where she remained until discharged on January 24, 1973.

Claimant filed a claim against the State and others on December 27, 1973 wherein she set forth causes of action sounding in (a) false imprisonment, (b) negligence in caring for and diagnosi her condition, (c) fraud in refusing to honor a promise of discharge in 1966, and (d) wrongful interference with her right to pursue a business transaction. On April 13, 1976 the Court of Claims dismissed the claim as to all named defendants except the State, but denied the State's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. This appeal ensued.

Before discussing the merits, we feel constrained to review briefly the evolution of the statutory scheme applicable to the factual pattern herein. Such review is required because the earliest court order relied upon by the State to justify retention of claimant is dated November 29, 1968, 13 years and 7 months after the order of commitment. Such a review necessarily begins with a statement of the law applicable to involuntary commitments in 1955. Article 5 of the Mental Hygiene Law (L.1927, ch. 426, amd. by L.1933, ch. 395) did not require the authorities of a State hospital to periodically obtain orders of retention entailing a requisite review of a patient's mental condition. The order of commitment of April 6, 1955 did not limit the duration of confinement, nor did it require the custodial institution or any other entity to examine and report to any court or agency regarding the condition of the confined individual. Law reflects climate and attitudes, and, unfortunately, until the law was enlighteningly amended, involuntary admittees to mental hospitals were solely dependent upon family members and friends to petition for their release. It was not until 1964 that the Mental Hygiene Law was amended to require that "3 (I)f the director of a hospital, in which a patient is retained * * * shall determine that the condition of such patient requires his further retention in a hospital, he shall, if such patient does not agree to remain in such hospital as a voluntary or informal patient, apply during the period of retention authorized by the last order of the court * * * for an order authorizing further continued retention of such patient * * *." (Mental Hygiene Law, § 73, added by L.1964, ch. 738.) This 1964 amendment, however, had no application to persons confined in mental institutions prior to its effective date, September 1, 1965. To correct this statutory defect, section 73 was amended (L.1968, ch. 1050) so as to insert in section 73 the requirement that as to those committed prior to September 1, 1965, an application for a further retention order be made "within one year after April first, nineteen hundred and sixty-eight or during the period of retention authorized by the...