New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01 (2026)

Protection of patients' rights

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 33.01 Protection of patients' rights.
  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
deprived of any civil right, if in all other respects qualified and
eligible, solely by reason of receipt of services for a mental
disability nor shall the receipt of such services modify or vary any
civil right of any such person, including but not limited to civil
service ranking and appointment, the right to register for and to vote
at elections, or rights relating to the granting, forfeiture, or denial
of a license, permit, privilege, or benefit pursuant to any law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Lesley M. DeLia v. Douglas Munsey, 41 N.E.3d 1119 (NY 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Lesley M. DeLia v. Douglas Munsey, 41 N.E.3d 1119 (NY 2015). · cites it 2× “Tweed, 60 NY at 566 ; see also Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01; People ex rel.”

Rivers v. Katz, 495 N.E.2d 337 (NY 1986). “Nor does the fact of mental illness result in the forfeiture of a person’s civil rights (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01), including the fundamental right to make decisions concerning one’s own body (see, Du Bose, Of the Parens Patriae Commitment Power and Drug Treatment of…”

Gill v. New York City Hous. Auth., 130 A.D.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 2× “(See, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01.) There is nothing in the record before this court which could conceivably support the kind of inquiry which plaintiff claims defendant should have made.”

John B. v. Vill. of Rockville Centre, 113 A.D.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). · cites it 12× “In our judgment, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01 prohibits the Commissioner from terminating petitioner’s employment simply or solely because he sought and received treatment for alcoholism.”

In re Lyle A., 14 Misc. 3d 842 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2006). “Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01; 14 NYCRR 27.8 [providing mentally ill patients may object to any form of care and treatment and may appeal decisions with which they disagree]; Savastano v Saribeyoglu, 126 Misc 2d 52, 54 [1984] [holding that, “[i]n furtherance of his liberty…”

Exelbert v. State, 140 A.D.2d 665 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). “nt is privileged (CPLR 4504) and may not be disclosed absent a showing that a compelling interest overrides the privilege (Matter of Camperlengo v Blum, 56 NY2d 251 ; Matter of Jenkins v Martin, 99 AD2d 811 ; Perry v Fiumano, 61 AD2d 512 ), or that the interests of justice…”

Brennan v. Kaluczky, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1148 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). “Petitioner responded with the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that respondent unreasonably relied upon the inaccurate and inconsistent medical report for the conclusion that petitioner had a history of drug addiction, that respondent violated Mental Hygiene Law §…”

John B. v. Vill. of Rockville Centre, 496 N.E.2d 686 (NY 1986). · cites it 2× “His employment was terminated at the end of the probationary period, and he commenced this proceeding, claiming that the termination was violative of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01 because the termination was allegedly predicated upon the fact that he had sought treatment for…”

Savastano v. Nurnberg, 139 Misc. 2d 593 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987). “(Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01.) He or she retains a variety of important rights that the courts must be alert to protect.”

State v. Henry T., 54 Misc. 3d 609 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “Lawrence County for a Rivers hearing (Rivers v Katz, 67 NY2d 485 [1986]; Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01). Before the court presently are two motions: (1) respondent’s motion to dismiss dated January 4, 2016; and (2) respondent’s motion to compel an evaluation and report.”

Matter of Lyle A., 2006 NY Slip Op 26532 (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Monroe Cty. 2006). “Mental Hygiene Law § 33.01; 14 NYCRR 27.8 [providing mentally ill patients may object to any form of care and treatment and may appeal decisions with which they disagree]; Savastano v Saribeyoglu , 126 Misc 2d 52, 54 [1984] [holding that, "[i]n furtherance of his 'liberty…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.