IN THE MATTER OF ST. LUKE'S-ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER, PETITIONER, MARIE H.,
RESPONDENT, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT, AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.
89 N.Y.2d 889, 675 N.E.2d 1209, 653 N.Y.S.2d 257 (1996).
December 20, 1996
1 No. 259 (1996 NY Int. 258)
Decided December 20, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
Alan G. Krams, for appellant.
Cliff Zucker, for individual respondent.
Kenneth Falk, for respondent Office of Court Admin.
Amy L. Abramowitz, for respondent SNY.
American Association of Retired Persons, et al., amici curiae.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with
costs.
In November 1993, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center initiated
a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL)
for the appointment of a guardian for respondent, an indigent alleged
incompetent person (AIP), for the purpose of transferring her to a
nursing home and making major medical or dental treatment decisions
without her consent. The AIP had a right to be represented by counsel
of her choice in those proceedings if she could afford one (Mental
Hygiene Law 81.10) and if she could not afford counsel, the court was
obliged to assign counsel under the statute (Mental Hygiene Law
81.10(c)) and because her constitutionally protected liberty interests
were at stake (see, Lassiter v Dept. of Social Services, 452 US 18;
Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485). Supreme Court named an attorney as
counsel for respondent and Mental Hygiene Legal Services as an
independent court evaluator (see, Mental Hygiene Law 81.09, 81.10;
Bailly, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws Book 34A, Mental
Hygiene Law 81.10, p 314). Though the statute is silent as to the
source of funds for payment of counsel if the AIP is indigent, the
Supreme Court determined that competent counsel could not be obtained
to represent the AIP without compensation. After remand to provide
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF ST. LUKE'S-ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER, PETITIONER, MARIE H., RESPONDENT, THE
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Alan G. Krams, for appellant.
Cliff Zucker, for individual respondent.
for respondent Office of Court Admin.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In November 1993, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center initiated a proceeding pursuant to
The AIP had a right to be represented by counsel of her choice in those proceedings if she
Supreme Court named an attorney as counsel for respondent and Mental Hygiene Legal Services
Though the statute is silent as to the source of funds for payment of counsel if the AIP is
After remand to provide the City of New York with an opportunity to contest the issue,
A divided Appellate Division affirmed those determinations.* The parties agree that the AIP
We conclude that the Legislature, by providing for the assignment of counsel for indigents in
The two pertinent statutes are Article 18-B of the County Law ) and section 35 of the
Assignments under Article 18-B are paid for by the county.
Accordingly, in the absence of legislation directing otherwise, we affirm the determination
* The dissenter concluded that Supreme Court had abused its discretion in requiring the
|
