34 Misc. 3d 365
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2011Background
- Ms. C. was admitted to KCH on June 20, 2011 and transferred to Kingsboro on August 11, 2011 for involuntary treatment due to schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance abuse.
- KCH obtained a 9.33 order on August 9, 2011 for continued retention up to six months, later reduced to four months by the court; Ms. C.’s retention under that order would expire December 9, 2011.
- Kingsboro (after transfer) filed a 9.33(d) application on September 14, 2011 for further continued retention of up to one year, and the matter was set for hearing on October 6, 2011.
- The court granted the hospital’s request to dismiss the 9.33(d) application, finding the filing premature and inconsistent with due process principles and least-restrictive alternatives.
- The court acknowledged statutory ambiguities in Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33(d) but held that the hospital could seek further treatment under the statute at a more appropriate time, preserving patient rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 9.33(d) application was premature | Kingsboro contends § 9.33(d) may be brought anytime during prior retention. | Ms. C. argues the application cannot bypass the expiration of the prior order and should await near its end. | Application premature; motion granted. |
| Whether the hospital can seek further continued retention before prior order expires | Kingsboro asserts unqualified right to seek further retention during prior order. | Ms. C. argues the timing risks unnecessary deprivation of liberty and lack of court oversight. | Timing inappropriate; court rejected premature filing. |
| Whether due process and least restrictive alternatives require delaying further retention | Hospital aims to medicate over objection and avoid delays in treatment. | Court emphasizes minimal deprivation and court oversight, avoiding extended periods beyond the necessary period. | Favoring least restrictive approach; dismisses the application. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Harry M., 96 AD2d 201 (2d Dept 1983) (least restrictive alternative in involuntary commitment)
- Matter of Kesselbrenner v Anonymous, 33 NY2d 161 (1963) (due process limits on deprivation of liberty)
- Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 (1972) (massive curtailment of liberty requires least restrictive means)
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process limits on prolonged involuntary commitment)
- Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F. Supp. 676 (E.D.N.Y. 1973) (liberty interests in confinement; due process considerations)
- Matter of Mary Ann D., 179 AD2d 724 (2d Dept 1992) (court oversight over involuntary treatment protections)
- Matter of William S., 31 AD3d 567 (2d Dept 2006) (procedural safeguards in 9.33 proceedings)