In the Matter of Simone
| Decision Date | 27 June 2007 |
| Citation | 874 N.E.2d 722,9 N.Y.3d 828 |
| Parties | In the Matter of SIMONE D., Appellant. Kathleen IVERSON, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed without costs.
Petitioner, the acting director of Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, sought permission to administer electroconvulsive therapy to a patient at the center without the patient's consent. Supreme Court granted the application, and the Appellate Division affirmed, two Justices dissenting. The patient appeals to us as of right, pursuant to CPLR 5601(a).
The sole ground for the patient's appeal is that Supreme Court improperly limited the patient's cross-examination of the State's psychiatric expert witness. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, when the cross-examination is viewed as a whole, the record shows no abuse of discretion. While specific evidentiary rulings can be debated, the patient's attorney was allowed to and did make clear to the court all the claimed weaknesses in the psychiatrist's testimony. The record does not show that Supreme Court excluded any evidence material to the only disputed issue: whether the proposed treatment was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient's liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances (Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 497-498, 504 N.Y.S.2d 74, 495 N.E.2d 337 [1986]).
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoberg v. Shree Granesh Llc
...its discretion in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert witness ( see Matter of Simone D., 9 N.Y.3d 828, 829, 842 N.Y.S.2d 758, 874 N.E.2d 722; Forte v. Standard Fusee Corp., 204 A.D.2d 600, 600, 614 N.Y.S.2d 219). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the S......
-
Samuel D. v. Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.
...of William S., 31 A.D.3d at 568, 817 N.Y.S.2d 674 ; Matter of Simone D., 32 A.D.3d 931, 933, 821 N.Y.S.2d 248, affd 9 N.Y.3d 828, 842 N.Y.S.2d 758, 874 N.E.2d 722 ; Matter of Mary Ann D., 179 A.D.2d 724, 578 N.Y.S.2d 622 ). Further, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidenc......
-
Jay S. v. Barber
...reasoned decision regarding the proposed treatment (see Matter of Simone D., 32 A.D.3d 931, 933, 821 N.Y.S.2d 248, affd. 9 N.Y.3d 828, 842 N.Y.S.2d 758, 874 N.E.2d 722 ; Matter of Paris M. v. Creedmoor Psychiatric Ctr., 30 A.D.3d 425, 818 N.Y.S.2d 109 ; Matter of Mausner v. William E., 264 ......
-
Chang v. Maliq M.
...providers is not a novel issue (see Matter of Simone D., 32 A.D.3d 931, 821 N.Y.S.2d 248, aff'd. sub nom. Simone D. v. Iverson, 9 N.Y.3d 828, 842 N.Y.S.2d 758, 874 N.E.2d 722 ; Matter of Michael L., 26 A.D.3d 381, 809 N.Y.S.2d 194 ; Matter of Mary Ann D., 179 A.D.2d 724, 578 N.Y.S.2d 622 ).......