Grant v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. New York State Office of Mental Health

247 A.D.2d 510, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1506

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 510 (Grant v. New York State Office of Mental Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grant v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 247 A.D.2d 510, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the closure of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center was contrary to law, the defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 9, 1996, which, among other things, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing any significant service reductions at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center before they complied with the 12-month no[511]*511tice provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) (3), and denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. “Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) does not prohibit injunctive relief when the notice provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) (3) have been violated” (Shea v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 233 AJD2d 925; see also, Civil Serv. Empls. Assn, v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 245 AD2d 836; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn, v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 244 AD2d 206). Furthermore, the plaintiffs otherwise established their entitlement to such relief (see, CPLR 6301).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the closure of Kingsboro Psychiatric Center was contrary to law, the defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated August 9, 1996, which, among other things, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing any significant service reductions at Kingsboro Psychiatric Center before they complied with the 12-month no[511]*511tice provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) (3), and denied their cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. “Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) does not prohibit injunctive relief when the notice provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 7.17 (e) (3) have been violated” (Shea v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 233 AJD2d 925; see also, Civil Serv. Empls. Assn, v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 245 AD2d 836; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn, v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 244 AD2d 206). Furthermore, the plaintiffs otherwise established their entitlement to such relief (see, CPLR 6301).

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit.

O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 510, 668 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-new-york-state-office-of-mental-health-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack