Maldonado v. R.J.
Opinion of the Court
Clear and convincing evidence — namely, respondent’s testimony and the testimony of two attending physicians at the hospital, one of whom was a board-certified psychiatrist — supports the court’s determination that respondent lacks decision-making capacity (see Public Health Law § 2994-c [6]; Addington v Texas, 441 US 418, 431-433 [1979]; Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 497 [1986]). Respondent’s testimony was consistent with the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and showed that he lacked decision-making capacity because of his mental illness.
We have considered respondent’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.