Heard v. Cuomo

• Decision Date: 18 February 1993
• Citation: 80 N.Y.2d 684,610 N.E.2d 348,594 N.Y.S.2d 675
• Parties: , 610 N.E.2d 348, 3 NDLR P 356 John HEARD et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mario M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants. Michael KOSKINAS et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. Jo I. BOUFFORD, as President of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, et al., Appellants, and Mario M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 675

594 N.Y.S.2d 675 80 N.Y.2d 684, 610 N.E.2d 348, 3 NDLR P 356 John HEARD et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
Mario M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, et
al., Defendants.
Michael KOSKINAS et al., Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Respondents,
v.
Jo I. BOUFFORD, as President of the New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, et al., Appellants,
and
Mario M. Cuomo, as Governor of the State of New York, et
al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 18, 1993.

[80 N.Y.2d 685] O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel of New York City, New York City (Leonard Koerner, Ronald E. Sternberg, George Gutwirth and Masako C. Shiono, of counsel), for appellants.

[80 N.Y.2d 686] Moon Moss McGill & Bachelder, of the Maine Bar, admitted pro hac vice (Robert M. Hayes, of counsel), and Paul, Weiss, Wharton & Garrison, New York City (Jay Topkis, Alisa D. Shudofsky and Ellen M. Moskowitz, of counsel), for Michael Koskinas and others, respondents.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Jerry Boone and Arnold D. Fleischer, of counsel), for Mario M. Cuomo and another, respondents.

Page 676

[80 N.Y.2d 687] [610 N.E.2d 349] OPINION OF THE COURT

BELLACOSA, Judge.

The named individuals seeking declaratory relief in these two actions are homeless, mentally ill persons. They sue for themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated.

The Supreme Court, after a lengthy trial, ruled in favor of plaintiffs, and held that the duties imposed on defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. (HHC), under Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15, include a duty to implement the individual written service plans of mentally ill patients with respect to adequate and appropriate housing upon their discharge from its hospitals. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and granted essentially only HHC leave to appeal from the order upholding the judgment in plaintiffs' favor against HHC, 179 A.D.2d 429, 578 N.Y.S.2d 417. Thus, for purposes of deciding this matter, the statutory obligations of only defendant HHC are at issue, since the dismissal of the action against the State is not part of the appeal before us.

We now affirm the order of the Appellate Division and hold that, in the context of this case, Mental Hygiene Law § 29.15 imposes these duties on HHC: (1) to prescribe and assist in locating adequate and appropriate housing for about-to-be-discharged mentally ill patients; (2) to discharge them in accordance with the individualized, written, patient service plans which include recommended housing; and (3) to coordinate the effectuation of those efforts among responsible entities. Notably, neither the statute nor the affirmed judgment imposes upon HHC the explicit duty to build, create, supply or fund such housing.

Appellant HHC contends that the courts below have erroneously expanded its statutory duties and have imposed enormous and unintended new fiscal obligations on HHC to build and provide housing for mentally ill persons. Instead, it views its duty essentially as an aspirational, cooperative, joint venture. Conversely, the plaintiffs seek declaratory relief compelling HHC to act as prescribed under the statute...