In the Matter of Simone D.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Stewart v. New York Hosp. Queens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Matter of Samuel D. (Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Chang v. Maliq M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Matter of Marietta Mc. (Forest Hills Hosp.) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- In re Jay S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re Jay S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Hoberg v. Shree Granesh, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re Sawyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed without costs.
*829 Petitioner, the acting director of Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, sought permission to administer electroconvulsive therapy to a patient at the center without the patient’s consent. Supreme Court granted the application, and the Appellate Division affirmed, two Justices dissenting. The patient appeals to us as of right, pursuant to CPLR 5601 (a).
The sole ground for the patient’s appeal is that Supreme Court improperly limited the patient’s cross-examination of the State’s psychiatric expert witness. We agree with the Appellate Division majority that, when the cross-examination is viewed as a whole, the record shows no abuse of discretion. While specific evidentiary rulings can be debated, the patient’s attorney was allowed to and did make clear to the court all the claimed weaknesses in the psychiatrist’s testimony. The record does not show that Supreme Court excluded any evidence material to the only disputed issue: whether the proposed treatment was narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient’s liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances (Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485, 497-498 [1986]).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.