Klostermann v. Cuomo

• Decision Date: 27 March 1984
• Parties: , 463 N.E.2d 588 John KLOSTERMANN et al., Appellants, v. Mario M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. JOANNE S. et al., Appellants, v. Hugh L. CAREY, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 247

475 N.Y.S.2d 247 61 N.Y.2d 525, 463 N.E.2d 588 John KLOSTERMANN et al., Appellants,
v.
Mario M. CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York, et
al., Respondents.
JOANNE S. et al., Appellants,
v.
Hugh L. CAREY, as Governor of the State of New York, et al.,
Respondents. Court of Appeals of New York. March 27, 1984.

[61 N.Y.2d 527]

Page 249

[463 N.E.2d 590] Robert M. Hayes, Roger E. Podesta, Douglas Gross and Nicole A. Gordon, New York City, for appellants in the first above-entitled action.

[61 N.Y.2d 528] Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Howard L. Zwickel, Peter H. Schiff, Melvyn R. Leventhal and John Petrila, Asst. Attys. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for respondents in the first above-entitled action.

[61 N.Y.2d 529] Joseph T. McLaughlin, Rachel Deming, Daniel Levin, Ronald N. Gottlieb, Marvin Bernstein, Peter Margulies and Mark O. Thelen, New York City, for appellants in the second above-entitled action.

[61 N.Y.2d 530] Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., New York City (Arnold D. Fleischer, Peter H. Schiff, Melvyn R. Leventhal, Howard L. Zwickel, William J. Caplow and John Petrila, Asst. Attys. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for respondents in the second above-entitled action.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

The mentally ill, whether in a State institution or previously institutionalized and now homeless in New York City, are entitled to a declaration of their rights as against the State. Their claims do not present a nonjusticiable controversy merely because the activity contemplated on the State's part may be complex and rife with the exercise of discretion. Rather, the judiciary is empowered [61 N.Y.2d 531] to declare the individual rights in all such cases, even if the ultimate determination is that the individual has no rights. Moreover, if a statutory directive is mandatory, not precatory, it is within the courts' competence to ascertain whether an administrative agency has satisfied the duty that has been imposed on it by the Legislature and, if it has not, to direct that the agency proceed forthwith to do so.

I

These two actions, each seeking declaratory relief and mandamus, were initiated by persons treated for mental illness in State institutions, claiming that their constitutional and statutory rights have been violated by the various defendants. The essence of their demands is that they are entitled to be released into the community under a program that will ensure continued treatment and adequate housing. The courts below unanimously dismissed each complaint on the ground that the controversies presented were nonjusticiable because their resolution would involve an excessive entanglement of the courts with the executive and legislative branches. This court now reverses. The background details of each action are briefly outlined, the facts being taken from the allegations in the complaints which, in reviewing these motions to dismiss, are taken as true (see

Page 250

[463 N.E.2d 591] Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391, 394, 456 N.Y.S.2d 720, 442 N.E.2d 1231).

Klostermann v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs are nine persons suing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Each was treated in a State psychiatric hospital and discharged as part of the State's policy to release patients to less restrictive, community-based residences. Each plaintiff became one of the homeless wandering the streets of New York City. Efforts to receive assistance from State and municipal agencies were unavailing or, at best, resulted in only minimal, periodic assistance.

Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to appropriate residential placement, supervision, and care, including follow-ups to verify that their placement remains appropriate. They presented their claims in 11 causes of action. Citing the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to [61 N.Y.2d 532] the United States Constitution, plaintiffs asserted a violation of their rights to receive treatment, including transitional care and aftercare upon discharge, in the least restrictive environment and to personal security and freedom from harm. Plaintiffs also asserted a denial of equal protection under the law because others similarly situated, when released, have been provided with the services that plaintiffs have not received. Plaintiffs also pleaded that the State's failure to provide the desired services violates various Federal statutes as well as a common-law duty to provide State hospital patients with reasonable care and to protect them from reasonably foreseeable harm.

The crux of plaintiffs' complaint is an asserted right under State law to receive residential placement, supervision, and care upon release from a State institution. Their claims are grounded in the provisions of subdivisions (f) through (h) of section 29.15 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which prescribe certain acts that must be undertaken when a patient in a State psychiatric institution is to be discharged or conditionally released into the community. ¹ [61 N.Y.2d 533] Summarized, the statute requires that a "written service plan" be prepared for each patient before his or her release. At a minimum,

Page 251

[463 N.E.2d 592] the plan must set forth what will be required by the patient upon discharge or conditional release, specifically recommend the type of residence in which the client should live, and list the services available at that residence as well as organizations and facilities in the area which are available to provide services in accordance with the identified needs of the patient. Lastly, the director of any department facility must create, implement, and monitor a program to ensure that a patient is living in an adequate facility and is receiving the services he or she needs.

Plaintiffs' prayer for relief sought class certification and certain substantive remedies. They asked for a declaration that defendants have violated Federal and State law by their failure to comply with section 29.15 and by failing to provide treatment under the least restrictive conditions suitable to plaintiffs' needs. Plaintiffs also asked for an order directing defendants "to develop and implement a plan with all due speed which will provide sufficient community-based residential facilities for plaintiffs and members of the class they represent." Plaintiffs also requested damages.

Defendants did not answer but, instead, moved to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint failed to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211, subd. [a], pars. 2, 7). Their jurisdictional argument was founded on the position that treating...