Strauss, Matter of
| Decision Date | 01 February 1977 |
| Citation | 391 N.Y.S.2d 168,56 A.D.2d 570 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Aaron STRAUSS. DIRECTOR, HARLEM VALLEY PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, Appellant, v. Aaron STRAUSS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and MARTUSCELLO, MARGETT and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Motion by appellant for reargument of appeal (2004 E/76) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered March 22, 1976, which judgment denied his application for authorization to perform certain surgery upon respondent Aaron Strauss.
Motion granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court, both dated October 18, 1976, insofar as they dispose of the judgment in the proceeding involving Aaron Strauss, are hereby recalled and vacated, and the following substituted decision is rendered:
Appeal by the director of the Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered March 22, 1976, which denied his application for authorization to perform certain surgery upon respondent Aaron Strauss.
Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and application granted.
Persons committed to State institutions for the mentally ill are wards of the court, 'upon which a duty devolves of protection both as to their persons and property' (Wurster v. Armfield, 175 N.Y. 256, 262, 67 N.E. 584, 585). Where the record shows the clear necessity for surgery to alleviate extreme discomfort (here, to alleviate a massive hydrocele), the court is fully empowered to grant authorization therefor, especially where there is no close relative who is in the position to give consent. Section 15.03 of the Mental Hygiene Law () was not intended to derogate from this humane necessity. Part 27 of title 14 of the regulations of the Department of Mental Hygiene, (14 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 27) promulgated pursuant to sections 9.01 and 15.03 of the Mental Hygiene Law, constituted a reasonable interpretation and execution of that law. Section 9.01 provides that '(t)he commissioner may adopt regulations necessary and proper to implement any matter under his jurisdiction.'
The ex parte appointment of the director of the Mental Health Information Service (MHIS) of the Second Judicial Department as guardian ad litem for the patient was appropriate. Since the court did not thereafter choose to appoint someone else, the original appointment continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storar, Matter of
... ... In addition, on July 9, 1980, Arlene A. Hughes, the Deputy Director and Counsel of the Mental Health Information Service, was appointed Guardian ad litem of Storar (see, Matter of Strauss, 56 A.D.2d 570, 391 N.E.2d 168) ... Storar is and always has been profoundly mentally retarded. His IQ has been assessed at between 10 and 20, with a corresponding mental age of between 11/2 and 2. He is able to recognize some people and understand some verbal communication. At ... ...
-
Hughson v. St. Francis Hosp. of Port Jervis
... ... Perforce, a fetus or infant in utero is also unable to give legal consent, much less, as a practical matter, any consent at all. It is the pregnant mother to whom we must look. That patients, themselves incapable of giving legal consent, may have their eatment authorized by other competent individuals or authorities has already been judicially recognized. Thus, in Matter of Strauss, 56 A.D.2d 570, 571, 391 N.Y.S.2d 168, this court held that section 2805-d of the Public Health Law was "clearly not intended to prevent a court from ... ...
-
Barbara C., Matter of
... ... It is only in that instance that the court exercises its power as parens patriae to determine whether the interests of the patient warrant the performance of the proposed procedure (Matter of Harris v. Roberts, 91 A.D.2d 1141, 458 N.Y.S.2d 719; Matter of Strauss, 56 A.D.2d 570, 391 N.Y.S.2d 168) ... Accordingly, there should be an affirmance ... Order of the Supreme ... ...
-
Shirley C., Matter of
... ... Since Mrs. Schwartz has refused to authorize the requested modified radical mastectomy, the court has been asked to do so. The nature of my function is found in the following excerpt from Matter of Strauss, 56 A.D.2d 570, 391 N.Y.S.2d 168, 169 (2nd Dep't 1977): ... "Persons committed to State institutions for the mentally ill are wards of the court 'upon which a duty devolves of protection both as to their persons and property' ... Where the record shows the clear necessity for surgery ... , the ... ...