Opinion
June 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the court does have jurisdiction, under its parens patriae power, to protect the person and property of individuals unable to care for themselves by reason of mental illness (Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485; Matter of Doe, 104 A.D.2d 200), to condition petitioner's retention of respondent upon the provision of specific services the court deems necessary to remedy a failed therapeutic relationship, in order to protect respondent's constitutional right to the least restrictive alternative consistent with the legitimate purposes of a commitment (Matter of Kesselbrenner v Anonymous, 33 N.Y.2d 161, 167), and to ensure effective and proper treatment (Matter of Nyazi, 111 Misc.2d 414; Matter of Shirley C., 136 Misc.2d 843).
We have reviewed petitioner's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.