From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Bethune

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 2004
12 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2004-04193.

November 22, 2004.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33 to retain a patient involuntarily admitted to a hospital, Dean R. Weinstock, Executive Director of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated April 22, 2004, which denied the petition and directed the release of the patient.

Before: Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Skelos, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

To retain a patient in a mental health care facility for involuntary psychiatric care, the facility or its director must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is mentally ill and in need of further care and treatment, and that the patient poses a substantial threat of physical harm to herself or himself or to others ( see Matter of Dionne D., 5 AD3d 766, 767; Matter of John P., 265 AD2d 559; Matter of Seltzer v. Grace J., 213 AD2d 412).

In the case at bar, there is no question that Bethune M. (hereinafter the patient) suffers from a mental illness. The only issue is whether such illness causes her to pose a substantial threat of physical injury to herself or others. Such a showing was not made by clear and convincing evidence. Dr. Vikas, the hospital's only witness, testified that she examined the patient on three occasions for only 10 to 15 minutes on each occasion. Dr. Vikas testified that the patient has continued intense paranoid delusions directed at her mother, but was not aware of any recent threats made by her against her mother. Dr. Vikas was not aware of any threats made by the patient, and the hospital records reflected no such threats within the last six months prior to the hearing. Moreover, the patient lucidly testified that she is able to support herself and has no plans to hurt anyone.

The "clear and convincing evidence" standard was not met and, therefore, the patient could not be involuntarily confined ( see Matter of Carl C., 126 AD2d 640).


Summaries of

In the Matter of Bethune

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 22, 2004
12 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Bethune

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BETHUNE M., Respondent. DEAN R. WEINSTOCK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 22, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
785 N.Y.S.2d 478

Citing Cases

Paulina D. v. Barron

In January 2013, the Hospital petitioned for an order authorizing Paulina D.'s continued involuntary…

In re Sidney JJ.

Petitioner appealed, invoking an automatic stay of Supreme Court's judgment ( see CPLR 5519 [a] [1]). To…