Matter of Thomas B.
Docket 2024-03383
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02401
- Docket
- 2024-03383
Appeal from a Supreme Court order, following a hearing, granting a petition authorizing involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to an involuntarily committed patient.
Summary
The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order that authorized involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to Thomas B., an involuntarily committed patient who denied having a mental illness. The court reviewed a petition brought by the State and held that the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about treatment and that the proposed medication was narrowly tailored to protect his liberty interest. The court deferred to the hearing court’s factual findings, including the treating psychiatrist’s testimony diagnosing schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder with violent symptoms.
Issues Decided
- Whether the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision about the proposed psychotropic treatment.
- Whether the proposed course of psychotropic medication is narrowly tailored to protect the patient's liberty interest given his condition and alternatives.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the clear-and-convincing standard from Rivers v Katz, requiring proof both of lack of decision-making capacity and that treatment is narrowly tailored to the patient's liberty interests. The hearing court credited the treating psychiatrist who testified that Thomas B. was seriously and dangerously mentally ill, diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, exhibiting delusions, hallucinations, and violent behavior. Because Thomas B. did not testify or present contrary evidence, and the record showed the proposed treatment met the narrow-tailoring requirement, the appellate court affirmed the authorization.
Authorities Cited
- Rivers v Katz67 NY2d 485
- Matter of Tyrone M.186 AD3d 604
- Matter of Marvin P. (Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.)222 AD3d 758
Parties
- Appellant
- Thomas B.
- Respondent
- Kimberly Resnick
- Attorney
- Mental Hygiene Legal Service (Michael D. Neville, Felicia B. Rosen, Dennis B. Feld)
- Attorney
- Letitia James, Attorney General (Mark S. Grube, Andrea W. Trento)
- Judge
- Betsy Barros, J.P.
- Judge
- Cheryl E. Chambers
- Judge
- Linda Christopher
- Judge
- James P. McCormack
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-22
- Supreme Court order date
- 2023-10-05
- Petition filed
- 2023-08-03
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about further appeal
If the patient or his representatives wish to challenge the decision, they should discuss the viability and timing of a Court of Appeals application with appellate counsel.
- 2
Comply with treatment authorization
The treating facility should follow the court-authorized medication plan and document administration, monitoring, and any side effects consistent with the order.
- 3
Consider alternative evidence or testimony
If pursuing further review, counsel for the patient should consider presenting the patient’s testimony, additional medical opinions, or evidence of less intrusive alternatives at the next stage.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s order allowing the State to give psychotropic medication to Thomas B. against his will.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Thomas B., the psychiatric facility treating him, and officials seeking court authorization to medicate involuntarily committed patients under similar circumstances are affected.
- Why was involuntary medication allowed?
- Because the State proved by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacked capacity to decide about treatment and that the proposed medication was narrowly tailored to balance his liberty interests and safety.
- Can this be appealed further?
- Yes, typically an appeal could be taken to the Court of Appeals, but the decision does not state whether that step has been or will be taken.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Matter of Thomas B. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02401 Matter of Thomas B. 2026 NY Slip Op 02401 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department In the Matter of Thomas B. (Anonymous), appellant. Kimberly Resnick, etc., respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2024-03383, (Index No. 200021/06) Betsy Barros, J.P. Cheryl E. Chambers Linda Christopher James P. McCormack, JJ. Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Garden City, NY (Michael D. Neville, Felicia B. Rosen, and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Mark S. Grube and Andrea W. Trento of counsel), for respondent. DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding for permission to administer a course of medication to a patient without his consent, Thomas B. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Timothy P. McElduff, J.), dated October 5, 2023. The order, after a hearing, granted the petition. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. On August 3, 2023, the petitioner commenced this proceeding for authorization to administer psychotropic medication to Thomas B., an involuntarily committed patient at a secure psychiatric facility, against his will. Thomas B. denies that he suffers from a mental illness. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court issued an order authorizing the petitioner to administer the proposed course of medication over Thomas B.'s objection. Thomas B. appeals. The State may administer a course of medical treatment against a patient's will if it establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patient lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to proposed treatment ( see Rivers v Katz , 67 NY2d 485, 497), and that "the proposed treatment is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient's liberty interest, taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, including the patient's best interests, the benefits to be gained from the treatment, the adverse side effects associated with the treatment and any less intrusive alternative treatments" ( id. at 497-498; see Matter of Tyrone M. , 186 AD3d 604, 605). Whether a mentally ill patient has the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to treatment is a question of fact for the hearing court, the credibility findings of which are entitled to due deference ( see Matter of Marvin P. [Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.] , 222 AD3d 758, 759; Matter of Tyrone M. , 186 AD3d at 605). Here, the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Thomas B. lacks the capacity to make a reasoned decision with respect to the proposed treatment ( see Matter of Tyrone M. , 186 AD3d at 605-606; Matter of Paris M. v Creedmoor Psychiatric Ctr. , 30 AD3d 425, 425-426). In particular, Thomas B.'s treating psychiatrist testified that Thomas B. was "seriously, dangerously mentally ill." Thomas B. was diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, with symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, and impulsive and assaultive behaviors. His symptoms include violent behavior as a result of psychotic symptoms. Thomas B. did not testify at the hearing or present other evidence. Further, the petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed course of treatment is narrowly tailored to preserve Thomas B.'s liberty interest ( see Matter of Marvin P. [Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Ctr.] , 222 AD3d at 759). Thomas B.'s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph