Mental Hygiene Legal Services ex rel. Cruz v. Wack, 75 N.Y.2d 744 (1989)
r
r
To involuntarily retain a patient for in-patient care and treatment, a court must find that the patient currently suffers from a mental illness necessitating such retention; deferring this determination to a commissioner is impermissible.
r
r
Summary
r
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether an appellate court could order the retention of a patient in a nonsecure facility without explicitly finding that the patient currently suffered from a mental illness. The Court of Appeals held that such a finding is a prerequisite for involuntary retention. The court reasoned that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15(b) mandates release absent a finding of current mental illness necessitating in-patient care, emphasizing that the determination cannot be deferred to the Commissioner. The dissent argued that the Appellate Division improperly deferred the mental illness determination, depriving the petitioner of factual review.
r
r
Facts
r
The petitioner was subject to involuntary retention. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner was not suffering from a dangerous mental disorder and ordered his release. The Appellate Division modified the order, directing a transfer to a nonsecure facility, even though the petitioner’s expert testified he was not mentally ill, favoring a gradual release. The Appellate Division deferred the final determination of whether the petitioner was actually mentally ill to the Commissioner’s pending application for a subsequent retention order.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Supreme Court initially ordered the petitioner’s release after finding he did not suffer from a dangerous mental disorder. The Appellate Division modified this order, directing a transfer to a nonsecure facility instead of release. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was proper.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether an appellate court, in a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15(b), can order the retention of a patient in a nonsecure facility without making an explicit finding that the patient currently suffers from a mental illness necessitating such retention.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15(b) mandates release upon a court’s finding that the patient is not mentally disabled or is not in need of further retention for in-patient care and treatment, and a determination of