Metalsky v. Mercy Haven Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1993
• Parties: Ira METALSKY, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HAVEN INC. and Patricia Griffith, Executive Director, Defendants. /IAS, Part 23
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 124

594 N.Y.S.2d 124

156 Misc.2d 558

Ira METALSKY, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HAVEN INC. and Patricia Griffith, Executive Director Defendants.

Supreme Court, Nassau County Trial/IAS, Part 23.

Jan. 13, 1993.

Robert D. Gallo, Hempstead, for plaintiff.

Patrick F. Adams, P.C., Bay Shore, for defendants.

MARVIN E. SEGAL, Justice.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The defendant, Mercy Haven Inc., is a non-profit corporation, presently operating three licensed community residences under contract with the New York State Office of Mental Health. The defendant, Patricia Griffith is the executive director of Mercy Haven Inc. The plaintiff is a 42 year old male who has suffered from psychiatric illness since 1969. Between 1969 and 1980, he was hospitalized for psychiatric illness over 20 times. From 1980 until May, 1991, the plaintiff was an in-patient at the Pilgrim Psychiatric Center. On or about May 23, 1991, the plaintiff was discharged from Pilgrim Psychiatric Center to live at a community residence operated by Mercy Haven at 2571 Aster Place North in Westbury, New York. He has resided there continuously to date. His present psychiatric diagnosis is Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia. The plaintiff is currently receiving treatment for his psychiatric illness at Central Nassau Guidance and Counseling Services. He takes an anti-psychotic drug, Haldol, as prescribed by his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Gabay. The plaintiff also receives Community Support Services and is entitled to Case Management Services through the Nassau County Department of Mental Health.

The plaintiff's expenses of $842.00 per month for room and board at Mercy Haven were initially paid by the Department of Social Services. These expenses are now paid through the plaintiff's social security disability benefits.

On or about August 24, 1992, Mercy Haven gave the plaintiff a 30 day written notice advising him "to find other living arrangements" within 30 days. The plaintiff contends that he will suffer irreparable harm if Mercy Haven is not restrained from utilizing "self-help" and evicting him without resort to legal process. The plaintiff asserts that he has no family he can live with and that he has, to date, been unable to secure "other living arrangements" although he is awaiting admission to an adult home in Long Beach. Based upon the severity of his psychiatric illness, the plaintiff contends that Mercy Haven is obligated to propose and plan an appropriate discharge for him. The plaintiff contends that one proposed plan by Mercy Haven, to release the plaintiff to a Department of Social Services Emergency Shelter for the Homeless, was inappropriate on the grounds 1) that the plaintiff has resources in excess of $2000.00 rendering him ineligible for such assistance pursuant to18 NYCRR 370 and 2) that such placement would not afford him appropriate and necessary services. A second discharge plan proposed by Mercy Haven to release the plaintiff to a motel in Westbury at a cost of $795.00 per month rent is apparently beyond plaintiff's financial resources. The plaintiff claims that Mercy Haven's proposed discharge plans would leave him homeless.

The plaintiff contends that Mercy Haven's connections with the State of New York are of such nature that the acts of Mercy Haven constitute State action. As such, plaintiff claims Mercy Haven must afford him due process of law and that due process mandates that an individual be afforded specific protections prior to discharge, and that any discharge determination be appealable through an Article 78 proceeding.

In the alternative, the plaintiff argues that as a long term resident of Mercy Haven, having resided at said residence for over 18 months, he is a tenant-at-will and as such is entitled to the protections afforded by RPAPL 701 et seq. The plaintiff further contends, if he is not a tenant, he is a licensee, and as such may not be evicted absent a 10 day notice, and a summary proceeding instituted pursuant to RPAPL § 713. It is the plaintiff's contention that he can be evicted only by the sheriff executing a warrant, after notice and an appropriate court proceeding. The plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction, restraining the defendants from discharging him from Mercy Haven until final disposition of this proceeding.

The defendants contend 1) that Mercy Haven's acts are not state action 2) that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties herein 3) that Mercy Haven is not an adult home, residence for adults, motel, hotel, rooming house or single occupancy hotel, but is a "program"; that the plaintiff has persistently and chronically breached the contractual provisions of the program and accordingly must vacate the facility, and 4) that Mercy Haven took all the proper steps to effectuate a "non-disruptive, planned and predictable transfer of plaintiff to an appropriate living circumstance".

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In the early 1970's New York State began to make the gradual transition toward the establishment of community based mental health care and services and away from what had historically been a state psychiatric hospital based service. With the advent of symptom controlling psychotropic medication, the need for the locked ward asylums of the past were rendered non-therapeutic, cost ineffective and socially unacceptable. In furtherance of this goal, the commissioner of mental health was authorized by the legislature to establish a continuum of community residential services for the mentally ill. Section 41.44 of the Mental Hygiene Law (Legislative Findings and Intent Section 1 of L. 1984, ch. 298, effective June 27, 1984). This statute requires that:

... (b) The Commissioner shall establish standards for the operation and funding of community residential services, including but not limited to:

1. criteria for admission to and continued residence in each type of community residence;

2. periodic evaluation of services provided by community residences;

3. Staffing patterns for each type of community residence; and

4. guidelines for determining state aid to community residences.

A community residence is defined by section 1.03(28) of the Mental Hygiene Law as follows:

"Community residence" means any facility operated by or subject to licensure by the Office of Mental Health or the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities which provides a supervised residence or residential respite services for mentally disabled persons and a homelike environment and room, board and responsible supervision for the habilitation or rehabilitation of mentally disabled persons as part of an overall service delivery system....

Regulations governing community residences have been promulgated at 14 NYCRR Part 586. Section 586.1 sets forth the background and intent of the regulations as follows:

(a) Community residences for the mentally ill are facilities for mentally ill persons who are unable to live independently at a particular time. Community residences are specifically designed and operated to assist mentally ill persons to live as independently as possible through the provision of training and assistance in the skills of daily living, and by serving as an integrating focus for the mentally ill person's mental rehabilitation ...

(c) A community residence must exist in a system of services for its clientele. It cannot be an independently functioning facility without ties to other service providers. The total rehabilitation of mentally (e) ... the purposes of community residences vary. Some of these are: to provide a semi-independent residence in the community in the transition from institutional to independent living; to provide long-term supervised residence [for] persons whose mental illness is such that independent living is improbable; to provide a "shelter" for short periods in order to prevent admission to an institution; or to provide a brief stay substitute home ...

ill individuals requires many and diverse services; the community residence has as its part in the process, primarily, the development of residents' skills in life maintenance such as dining, dressing, money management, time management and use of community resources to enable residents to live as independently as possible while more general social and vocational skills are developed ...

(g) while community residences may provide short-term residence, long-term residence and, on occasion, both; in all cases the length of the stay extends only until a resident has attained the skills and motivation necessary to function in an available, less restrictive facility or residential setting ...

The administration of a community residence is required by the regulation promulgated at 14 NYCRR 586.6(j)(2) to adopt written policies for discharge which specify:

(i) The functional criteria for discharge and the procedures for discharge to both independent living and to less restrictive community residences;

(ii) The conditions and procedures governing discharge of residents prior to their gaining the ability to live independently;

(iii) The expected usual term of residence;

(iv) the conditions of availability of the residence to discharged residents who may desire to return ...

(v) the circumstances under which a resident admitted from another facility will be returned to that facility;

(vi) the arrangements which will be made for admission of a resident to an appropriate facility if the resident is mentally ill to the degree that he requires in-patient care in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Mental Hygiene Law ...

In addition to the Mental Hygiene Law and the regulations of the Department of Mental Health, community residences, such as Mercy Haven, are required to comply with The New Community Residence Program Model published by the Office of Mental Health, October 3, 1983. Pursuant to this set of guidelines a community residence is responsible for formulating appropriate discharge plans for its residents. "Discharge...