State of New York
Supreme Court : County of Monroe

In the Matter of the retention of
JAMES H.,
a patient admitted to
Saint Mary's Hospital.

_______________________________

This opinion is uncorrected and is subject to revision in the official Reports

ANDREW V. SIRACUSE, J.

Although it was not brought on as such, this application is in effect a petition for habeas corpus relief, in particular as such is authorized by Section 33.15 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The petitioner, who should properly be termed the relator (CPLR 7004), is currently at St. Mary's Hospital, where he was admitted on December 17, 2001. Under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39, the statute which authorizes involuntary admissions, the hospital was obligated to release Mr. H. after fifteen days unless he was certified for retention on medical grounds by two physicians (9.39 [b]).

This fifteen-day period ended on January 1, 2002, and the hospital did not secure a two-physician certification until the following day. Mr. H. argues that his continued retention was illegal as of January 2, that the statute requires strict compliance with its time limits, and that the subsequent certification cannot remove the taint of illegality. He asks for immediate release.

The respondent hospital admits that the certification was untimely, explaining in its papers that the holiday on January 1 resulted in a shortage of physicians able to examine Mr. H. and execute the necessary paperwork. The delay, it argues, was a matter of hours only. Under these circumstances the failure to meet the fifteen-day time limit was a mere procedural defect and should be overlooked in the interests of the state's obligation to protect those unable to look after their own well being. The hospital therefore requests an immediate hearing into the medical need for Mr. H.'s continued retention.

The court agrees with the result urged by the hospital, although it takes issue with certain of its arguments. The time limits set out in Article 9 of the Mental Hygiene Law are mandatory, and the court has no authority to extend them. No interest in our system is second to liberty, except for the interest in life itself; and that interest is improperly infringed by any deviation from the scheme established by the legislature. The Fourth Department held that such detention was illegal in People ex rel. Jacobs v Director of Gowanda State Hosp. (19 AD2d 858, affd 14 NY2d 663), and that case remains good law.

The immediate release of the relator is not, however, the appropriate remedy for such a violation. The court looks in particular to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15. This section is directly apposite, not only because it should have been the section under which the present action was commenced, but because a writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for remedying an illegal deprivation of liberty.

This section specifically requires that the court look at the relator's mental status and treatment needs as well as the circumstances of his retention:

(b) Upon the return of such a writ of habeas corpus, the court shall examine the facts concerning the person's alleged mental disability and detention. The evidence shall include the clinical record of the patient and medical or other testimony as required by the court. The court may review the admission and retention of the person pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The court shall discharge the person so retained if it finds that he is not mentally disabled or that he is not in need of further retention for in-patient care and treatment.

There is thus no inconsistency between People ex rel. Jacobs, supra, and People ex rel. Noel B. v Jones (230 AD2d 809), in which the Second Department agreed with a trial Justice that the relator was illegally detained but held that an immediate retention hearing was the proper remedy, not an immediate release. The same course must be followed here. A hearing into Mr. H.'s mental status and his need for continued retention shall be scheduled a soon as is practicable. This constitutes an order of the court, and no papers need to be filed prior to this hearing.

DATED: Rochester, New York

January 16, 2002

Andrew V. Siracuse, J.S.C.

This opinion is not available for publication in any official or unofficial reports, except the New york Law journal, without the approval of the State Reporter or the Committee on Opinions (22 NYCRR 7300.1)

Design © 1997 Michael Steinberg. No copyright subsists in the decision texts, which are government documents.

HOME GUIDES CASES ISSUES INDEX