<strong><em>Oddo v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent Program, Inc.</em></strong><strong>, 30 N.Y.3d 732 (2018)</strong></p>

A mental health facility does not owe a duty of care to protect third parties from the actions of a discharged resident when the facility no longer has control over the resident’s actions.

<strong>Summary</strong>

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility (JCAP) owed a duty of care to an individual assaulted by a resident (Velentzas) who had been discharged from its program. The court held that JCAP did not owe a duty of care because it had properly discharged Velentzas, thus relinquishing control over his actions at the time of the assault. The decision emphasized the importance of actual control in establishing a duty of care and highlighted the practical limitations and policy concerns associated with imposing a duty on facilities to protect the public from individuals they no longer have control over.

<strong>Facts</strong>

Sean Velentzas, a criminal defendant, was admitted to JCAP, a mental health and substance abuse treatment facility, as part of a TASC program. After three weeks, Velentzas was discharged due to an altercation with another resident and admitted alcohol use, violating JCAP’s rules. Shortly after discharge, Velentzas assaulted Anthony Oddo, his mother’s boyfriend. Oddo sued JCAP for negligence, alleging that the facility negligently released Velentzas. JCAP moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to Oddo because it properly discharged Velentzas. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

<strong>Procedural History</strong>

The trial court denied JCAP’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one judge dissenting. The Court of Appeals granted JCAP’s motion for leave to appeal, certifying the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

<strong>Issue(s)</strong>

1. Whether JCAP owed a duty of care to Oddo after discharging Velentzas from its program.

<strong>Holding</strong>

1. No, because JCAP did not have control over Velentzas at the time of the assault.

<strong>Court’s Reasoning</strong>

The court found that JCAP did not owe a duty of care to Oddo because it lacked control over Velentzas at the time of the assault. The court cited the general rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of third persons to prevent them from causing injury to others. The court distinguished this case from situations where a duty arises based on a relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor that includes the defendant’s actual control. The court emphasized that JCAP residents could leave the facility at any time, even against medical advice, which meant JCAP’s control over Velentzas was dependent on his willingness to comply with its directives. Since Velentzas was discharged, and no longer under JCAP’s control, it owed no duty to protect the public from him. The court expressed concern about imposing