Opinion
343 CA 21-00625
06-03-2022
In the Matter of the Application of M.B., Petitioner-Respondent, v. SUICIDE PREVENTION AND CRISIS SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents, and New York State Office of Mental Health, Respondent-Appellant.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALLYSON B. LEVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. THE TARANTINO LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO (ANN M. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ALLYSON B. LEVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
THE TARANTINO LAW FIRM, LLP, BUFFALO (ANN M. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., NEMOYER, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the supplemental order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition against respondent New York State Office of Mental Health is dismissed in its entirety.
Memorandum: Petitioner, who has been committed to psychiatric facilities on multiple occasions for paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder with psychotic features, commenced this proceeding to seal his psychiatric records under Mental Hygiene Law § 33.14 (a) (1) (b). To prevail in such a proceeding, the petitioner is obligated, among other things, to prove "by competent medical evidence that he [or she] is not currently suffering from a mental illness" and that "the interests of ... society would best be served by sealing [his or her] records" (id. ). Supreme Court granted the petition in relevant part and directed respondent-appellant (State) to, inter alia, seal petitioner's psychiatric records. The State appeals, and we now reverse.
As the State correctly contends, petitioner failed to establish either the mental illness prong or the societal interests prong of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.14 (a) (1) (b). The psychiatrist's affirmation upon which petitioner relies to establish the mental illness prong is entitled to no weight because the psychiatrist failed to review petitioner's psychiatric records and offered a conclusion that was entirely at odds with petitioner's longstanding and well-documented history of severe, incapacitating mental illness. Indeed, the psychiatrist simply accepted at face value petitioner's self-serving and counterfactual claim that he never actually suffered from any mental illness and that all of his diagnoses and hospitalizations were his mother's fault. Moreover, petitioner is seeking to seal his psychiatric records in order to join the military or become a police officer—callings that offer advanced weapons training and the privilege of using lethal force in defense of civil society. The interests of society are not "best" served by removing a barrier to petitioner's ability to join the military or police (id. ). Indeed, it would be inimical to society's best interests to facilitate the induction of petitioner into the security services of the United States (see e.g. People v. Westchester County S.P.C.C. , 173 A.D.2d 687, 688, 570 N.Y.S.2d 342 [2d Dept. 1991], lv dismissed 78 N.Y.2d 1041, 576 N.Y.S.2d 209, 582 N.E.2d 592 [1991], lv dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 819, 580 N.Y.S.2d 189, 588 N.E.2d 87 [1991], rearg denied 79 N.Y.2d 914, 581 N.Y.S.2d 664, 590 N.E.2d 249 [1992] ).
We have considered and rejected petitioner's jurisdictional challenges to our power to entertain this appeal.