Hoff v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1939 |
| Citation | 279 N.Y. 490,18 N.E.2d 671 |
| Parties | HOFF v. STATE. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Francis L. Hoff against the State of New York for damages for the misfeasance of the Superintendent of the Tonawanda State Hospital. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, 252 App. Div. 837, 299 N.Y.S. 763, affirming a judgment of the Court of Claims, which dismissed plaintiff's claim, plaintiff appeals.
Judgments of Appellate Division and Court of Claims reversed, and new trial granted. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth department.
A. Stanley Copeland, of Buffalo, for appellant.
John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. , for the State.
The claimant on March 6, 1936, while confined to Tonawanda State Hospital under an order of the court, signed and verified a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and placed it in a stamped emvelope addressed to his attorney, A. Stanley Copeland. The claimant had been adjudged insane. It is the duty of an employee of the hospital, acting under the direction of the superintendent, to examine all the mail of patients confined in the hospital before the mail is sent out. The claimant, believing that he was sane, had written to many men in public life asking their assistance. The claimant's wife had been annoyed by inquiries from persons who have received such letters. She requested that all letters written by the claimant should be sent to her. The superintendent of the hospital acceded to her request and, by his directions, all mail, including the letter addressed to the claimant's attorney and containing the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, was forwarded to claimant's wife, who suppressed the letter. On March 25th Copeland presented a new petition verified by himself to the County Judge of Erie county.
The writ was made returnable on March 30th before a jury. On April 2, 1936, the claimant was discharged from custody after the jury had determined that he was sane. Our constitutional guaranties of liberty are merely empty words unless a person imprisoned or detained against his will may challenge the legality of his imprisonment and detention. The writ of habeas corpus is the process devised centuries ago for the protection of free men. It has been cherished by generations of free men who had learned by experience that it furnished the only reliable protection of their freedom. The right of persons, deprived of liberty, to challenge in the courts the legality of their detention is safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States and by the Constitution of the State. The Legislature could not deprive any person within the State of the privilege of a writ of habeas corpus. N.Y.Const. art. 1, § 4. The superintendent of the hospital by diverting to claimant's wife the letter and petition for a writ of habeas corpus obstructed the claimant's right to test the legality of his imprisonment. Doubtless the superintendent acted in the honest belief that the claimant was insane. Nevertheless, his act delayed for a time a test of the claimant's sanity which, when made, resulted in his discharge.
We can find no basis for any claim that the superintendent's action was justifiable. The purpose of the claimant's letter was disclosed to him and the purpose of the direction given by the superintendent to send all mail to claimant's wife could only have been to give the wife the opportunity to suppress any communications from the claimant which in her opinion should not reach their intended destination.
The right of the superintendent in the exercise of a reasonable discretion to censor the ordinary mail written by a patient who has been adjudged insane is not challenged. The question is whether the superintendent of a State hospital for the insane may in the exercise of his discretion obstruct or delay a challenge of the legality of detention by a patient held under a court order. To that question one answer is clearly dictated. The State cannot under the Constitution withhold the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It has not attempted to do so. On the contrary, the Legislature has provided that ‘any one in custody as an insane person, * * * is entitled to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dale v. Hahn, 169
...He is known merely as an alleged incompetent. See also Finch v. Goldstein, 245 N.Y. 300, 303, 157 N.E. 146 (1927); Hoff v. New York, 279 N.Y. 490, 494, 18 N.E.2d 671 (1939); Griffin v. New York Life Insurance Co., 272 App.Div. 939, 72 N. Y.S.2d 50 (2d Dept. 1947). Thus it is clear that diff......
-
Dale v. Hahn
...Stearns, 59 N.Y. S.2d 103, 106 (Sup.1945). But see Finch v. Goldstein, 245 N.Y. 300, 303-305, 157 N.E. 146 (1927); Hoff v. New York, 279 N.Y. 490, 494, 18 N.E.2d 671 (1939); Quarterman v. Quarterman, 179 Misc. 759, 760, 39 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1943). Assuming arguendo that such cases correctly sta......
-
ex rel. Leo v. Stanley
...free men [sic] who had learned by experience that it furnished the only reliable protection of their freedom.” (Hoff v. State of New York, 279 N.Y. 490, 492, 18 N.E.2d 671 [1939] ). It must, therefore, be liberally construed “in harmony with its grand purpose.” (Tweed, 60 N.Y. at 568–569). ......
-
Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Happy v. Breheny
..."[t]he right of persons, deprived of liberty, to challenge in the courts the legality of their detention" ( Hoff v. State of New York, 279 N.Y. 490, 492, 18 N.E.2d 671 [1939] [emphasis added]). Article I, § 6 declares that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without ......