Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: The New York State Office of Mental Health, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Joseph C. (Anonymous), Respondent–Respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered July 24, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied the application for further retention of respondent at a secure psychiatric facility and directed respondent's transfer to a nonsecure facility, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the application granted.
Reversal of Supreme Court's order is warranted where the record shows that petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence, through the testimony and reports of mental health professionals, that respondent continues to exhibit a level of dangerousness that warrants continued retention in a secure facility (see Matter of Carpinello v. Floyd A.., 23 AD3d 179 [1s Dept 2005]; CPL 330.20[1][c] ). These witnesses testified that although respondent has done well during his time at the secure facility, he continues to suffer from the same paranoid and persecutory delusions that led him to commit the violent crime of killing his girlfriend's mother several years earlier. The witnesses also stated that respondent lacked insight into his schizophrenia; he indicated that he would be all right if he discontinued his medication; and expressed that his girlfriend's mother continued to use voodoo on him. Such evidence sufficiently demonstrates that respondent “is mentally ill and that he poses a current threat to himself and others” (Matter of Richard H. v. Consilvio, 6 AD3d 7, 15 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 601 [2004] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1446 7
Decided: March 10, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)