Mausner v. William E.

264 A.D.2d 485, 694 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 23, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 485 (Mausner v. William E.) 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
Mausner v. William E., 264 A.D.2d 485, 694 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In a proceeding for permission to administer antipsychotic medication to William E., a mentally ill person, without his consent, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated March 4, 1999, which, after a hearing, granted the petition.

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

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to the proposed drug treatment and that the proposed treatment was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to his liberty interest (see, Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 497).

[486]*486The uncontroverted evidence established that the appellant, a 56-year-old man suffering from schizophrenia, was unable to understand the nature of his illness and thus lacked the capacity to make a rational decision with respect to his treatment (see, Matter of Adele S. v Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr., 149 AD2d 424; Matter of McConnell, 147 AD2d 881).

In addition, both the appellant’s treating psychiatrist and the hospital’s psychiatrist agreed that his prognosis for improvement without changing his medication was poor and that he would remain institutionalized. The proposed drug treatment was expected to abate his delusions which otherwise made it impossible to reason with him. This in turn would allow him to take newer antipsychotic drugs which have no side effects and to participate in schooling and training programs which would allow reentry into the community (see, Matter of McConnell, supra). Joy, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuer-stein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Schlee
2021 NY Slip Op 02898 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Guttmacher (James M.)
2020 NY Slip Op 1989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Marietta Mc. (Forest Hills Hosp.)
125 A.D.3d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
In re Jay S.
118 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
In re Rhodanna C.B.
36 A.D.3d 106 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re Simone D.
32 A.D.3d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re William S.
31 A.D.3d 567 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
264 A.D.2d 485, 694 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mausner-v-william-e-nyappdiv-1999.