From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Welch v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

November 18, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we find that the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff's confinement was privileged under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.37 (a) (see, Gonzalez v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 810). The court was not required to consider the plaintiff's claim that she was not examined by a second staff physician within the required 72-hour time period because such claim was not raised in opposition to a prior motion for summary judgment made by the defendant County of Westchester (cf., Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558; Matter of Schwartzberg v. Axelrod, 115 A.D.2d 891, 892; Stokes v. County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645, 646). Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted in favor of the defendant County of Westchester. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Welch v. County of Westchester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 1991
177 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Welch v. County of Westchester

Case Details

Full title:FELICITAS WELCH, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, Respondent, et al.…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 1991

Citations

177 A.D.2d 627 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
576 N.Y.S.2d 332

Citing Cases

Tienken v. Benedictine Hosp.

” Rather than challenge the procedures employed, the plaintiff maintains that the decision to commit her…

Ferris v. Millman

It has been held, as argued by defendants, that commitment pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 9 is…