People v Betty Y.

[*1] People v Betty Y. 2013 NY Slip Op 23063 Decided on March 7, 2013 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 7, 2013
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, Betty Y.,

against

, Defendant.



3096/12



Attorney for the People:

Charles J. Hynes

District Attorney, Kings County

350 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

by ADA David Kelly

#718-250-3091

Attorney for the Defendant:

Joyce Kendrick, Esq.

Brooklyn Defender Services

177 Livingston Street, 5th Floor

Brooklyn, NY 11201

#718-254-0700

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

The defendant stands indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. On January 31, 2013, she was examined pursuant to court order under CPL 730.30 (2) by two psychiatric examiners and found unfit to proceed to trial in that she "did not appear psychiatrically stable enough to form a working relationship with counsel, maintain proper courtroom demeanor or withstand the stress of trial." As a result, the examining doctors recommend "continued mental health treatment as well as legal education in the interest of restoring her competency abilities."

Both the district attorney and defense counsel have received copies of the reports, neither side requests a hearing and both agree that the defendant is an incapacitated person (CPL 730.10 [1]), presently lacking a factual or rationale understanding of her case and also presently lacking the ability to assist in her own defense.

Until recently, such a finding required the court to remand the defendant to jail until the [*2]New York State Office of Mental Health was able to transfer the incapacitated person to a hospital for treatment. Often this resulted in severe hardship for defendants of fragile emotional and physical constitution. Past attempts by courts to avoid commitment of the individual have been soundly rejected on appeal (Lovell v Goodman, 305 AD2d 314; People v Schaffer, 207 AD2d 421).

However, by statute effective March 30, 2012, the legislature amended CPL 730.50 (1) to allow the court to commit the defendant to the custody of the Office of Mental Health, upon consent of the district attorney "for care and treatment on an out-patient basis." In this case on motion by defense counsel, the district attorney consents to out-patient treatment. The court agrees that this 54 year old woman who has a long history of psychiatric illness and clearly brittle constitution is best suited to fitness restoration on an out-patient basis.

It is, therefore, ordered that the defendant, who as a result of mental disease lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against her or to assist in her own defense be adjudicated an incapacitated person and committed to the custody of the Commissioner of the Office of Mental Health for care and treatment on an out-patient basis for a period not to exceed one year from the date of this order and that when the person in charge of out-patient restoration determines that the defendant is no longer an incapacitated person, such person give notice in writing to this court and to the district attorney.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.