John K. v. Consilvio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

John K. v. Consilvio

9 A.D.3d 256, 781 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9164

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 256 (John K. v. Consilvio) 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

John K. v. Consilvio, 9 A.D.3d 256, 781 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucindo Suarez, [257]*257J.), entered April 14, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, continued petitioner’s retention at respondent’s psychiatric center, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35, upon a finding of mental illness and need for involuntary commitment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s application to retain petitioner at its facility was initially granted in a prior order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. A rehearing and review of that prior order is not the appropriate setting for requesting transfer from a secure to a nonsecure facility (Matter of Consilvio v Michael B., 307 AD2d 852 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 545 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]). Transfer of involuntary patients between such facilities is covered in 14 NYCRR part 57, which satisfies the requirements of due process in all respects (cf. Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Ford, 92 NY2d 500 [1998]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucindo Suarez, [257]*257J.), entered April 14, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, continued petitioner’s retention at respondent’s psychiatric center, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35, upon a finding of mental illness and need for involuntary commitment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s application to retain petitioner at its facility was initially granted in a prior order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.33. A rehearing and review of that prior order is not the appropriate setting for requesting transfer from a secure to a nonsecure facility (Matter of Consilvio v Michael B., 307 AD2d 852 [2003], lv dismissed 1 NY3d 545 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]). Transfer of involuntary patients between such facilities is covered in 14 NYCRR part 57, which satisfies the requirements of due process in all respects (cf. Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Ford, 92 NY2d 500 [1998]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 256, 781 N.Y.S.2d 64, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-k-v-consilvio-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack