Matter of Beverly F.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Beverly F.

2017 NY Slip Op 3949, 150 A.D.3d 998, 55 N.Y.S.3d 331

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

DecidedMay 17, 2017

Docket2016-12875

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3949 (Matter of Beverly F.) 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

Matter of Beverly F., 2017 NY Slip Op 3949, 150 A.D.3d 998, 55 N.Y.S.3d 331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for permission to administer a course of electroconvulsive therapy to a patient over the patient’s objection, the patient appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated December 6, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks “the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment,” and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments” (Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 497-498 [1986]; see Matter of Adam K., 110 AD3d 168, 172 [2013]). Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference (see Matter of Harvey S., 38 AD3d 906, 907 [2007]; Matter of William S., 31 AD3d 567, 568 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 245 AD2d 856, 857 [1997]). Here, the appellant did not dispute that she lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision regarding the proposed treatment. Further, considering all of the relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s best interests, the potential benefits and hazards of the proposed treatment, and the lack of less intrusive alternatives, the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to protect the appellant’s liberty interest (see Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d at 497-498; Matter of William S., 31 AD3d at 568-569).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for permission to administer a course of electroconvulsive therapy to a patient over the patient’s objection, the patient appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), dated December 6, 2016, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient’s will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks “the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment,” and that “the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient’s best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments” (Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 497-498 [1986]; see Matter of Adam K., 110 AD3d 168, 172 [2013]). Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference (see Matter of Harvey S., 38 AD3d 906, 907 [2007]; Matter of William S., 31 AD3d 567, 568 [2006]; Matter of Joseph O., 245 AD2d 856, 857 [1997]). Here, the appellant did not dispute that she lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision regarding the proposed treatment. Further, considering all of the relevant circumstances, including the appellant’s best interests, the potential benefits and hazards of the proposed treatment, and the lack of less intrusive alternatives, the petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to protect the appellant’s liberty interest (see Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d at 497-498; Matter of William S., 31 AD3d at 568-569).

Rivera, J.R, Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3949, 150 A.D.3d 998, 55 N.Y.S.3d 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-beverly-f-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack