Shea v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shea v. New York State Office of Mental Health

233 A.D.2d 925, 649 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13421

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 925 (Shea 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

Shea v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 233 A.D.2d 925, 649 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs and intervenor a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from implementing any further service reductions at the Buffalo Psychiatric Center and from implementing defendant’s work force reduction plan. Plaintiffs and intervenor met the criteria for entitlement to such relief (see, CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860). 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 (see, Grant v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 169 Mise 2d 896).

The court erred, however, in rendering a final judgment on the merits before defendants submitted an answer. There are substantial questions of fact concerning whether proposed staff reductions are significant and defendants intended to submit an additional defense and evidence after oral argument of the motion for a preliminary injunction (see, e.g., Matter of Wood v Glass, 226 AD2d 387). Thus, we modify the order and judgment by vacating the second, third, fourth and sixth decretal paragraphs. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Preliminary Injunction.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs and intervenor a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from implementing any further service reductions at the Buffalo Psychiatric Center and from implementing defendant’s work force reduction plan. Plaintiffs and intervenor met the criteria for entitlement to such relief (see, CPLR 6301; Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 NY2d 860). 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 (see, Grant v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 169 Mise 2d 896).

The court erred, however, in rendering a final judgment on the merits before defendants submitted an answer. There are substantial questions of fact concerning whether proposed staff reductions are significant and defendants intended to submit an additional defense and evidence after oral argument of the motion for a preliminary injunction (see, e.g., Matter of Wood v Glass, 226 AD2d 387). Thus, we modify the order and judgment by vacating the second, third, fourth and sixth decretal paragraphs. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.—Preliminary Injunction.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 925, 649 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shea-v-new-york-state-office-of-mental-health-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack