Infants v. Zucker (In re Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. ex rel. Lucas R.)

206 A.D.3d 1546

170 N.Y.S.3d 381

In the Matter of MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, ON BEHALF OF LUCAS R. et al., Infants, Respondent,

v.Howard ZUCKER, as Commissioner of Health, et al., Appellants.

534647

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: June 1, 2022

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2022

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for appellants.

Sheila E. Shea, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Albany (Cailin Connors Brennan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Ceresia, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered November 15, 2021 in Albany County, which, among other things, converted an action into a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment and granted petitioner's motion for summary judgment.

Lucas R. and Theodore F. are children with multiple neurological and psychiatric disorders. In 2020 and 2021, Lucas R.’s and Theodore F.’s parents submitted applications for their children to be admitted into residential treatment facilities (hereinafter RTFs). Respondent Office of Mental Health (hereinafter OMH) denied those applications, concluding in each instance that care and treatment in an RTF could not reasonably be expected to improve the child's condition or prevent further regression. Thereafter, petitioner, on behalf of the children, brought the instant action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking a declaration that applicants for admission to an RTF must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard by way of a fair hearing upon denial of an application, and that failing to provide such was a violation of due process.

Following joinder of issue, petitioner moved for summary judgment and respondents cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted petitioner's motion and denied respondents’ cross motion, finding that an applicant for placement in an RTF is entitled to due process upon denial of the application and, thus, must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court further found, however, that the granting of the petition would not provide complete relief in light of respondents’ assertion that formal rule-making was necessary before a hearing could be conducted, a process that the court noted had both an open-ended timeline and an uncertain outcome. As a result, the court converted the matter to a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action and directed respondents to approve Lucas R.’s application, finding that he met the requirements for admission to an RTF.¹ Respondents appeal.

While not challenging Supreme Court's finding that applicants are entitled to due process upon denial of admission to an RTF, respondents assert that the court exceeded its authority in sua sponte reviewing the merits of Lucas R.’s application and directing approval thereof. We agree. As a general matter, "[a] court may grant any type of relief within its jurisdiction appropriate to the proof whether or not demanded, imposing such terms as may be just" ( CPLR 3017[a] ; see CPLR 104 ). However, "[w]hile a court's equitable powers are broad indeed, they are not without limit" ( Burns v. Burns, 174 A.D.3d 570, 571, 106...