N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Mental Hygiene / TITLE General Provisions / ARTICLE Rights of Patients
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 (2026)

Habeas corpus

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 33.15 Habeas corpus.
  (a) A person retained by a facility or the department or a relative or
friend on his behalf is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to question
the cause and legality of detention upon proper application.
  (b) Upon the return of such a writ of habeas corpus, the court shall
examine the facts concerning the person's alleged mental disability and
detention. The evidence shall include the clinical record of the patient
and medical or other testimony as required by the court. The court may
review the admission and retention of the person pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter. The court shall discharge the person so
retained if it finds that he is not mentally disabled or that he is not
in need of further retention for in-patient care and treatment.
  (c) In a subsequent application for a writ, any party to the
proceeding may introduce evidence or records from a prior hearing or
trial and such records shall have the same force and effect as
testimonial evidence.
  (d) The application for a writ of habeas corpus and the proceedings
upon it shall follow the procedure set forth in article seventy of the
civil practice law and rules.
  (e) The director of the facility where the person is detained shall
forthwith notify the mental hygiene legal service of any such
application for a writ and provide it with information as to the case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1984–2016 · 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 35× “136 concluding that Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 is not the exclusive habeas corpus provision available to article 9 patients and does not govern habeas corpus proceedings for those patients whose detention is challenged for reasons other than the patient's recovery.”
State Ex Rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 859 N.E.2d 508 (NY 2006). · cites it 6× “The State also argued that the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 govern this habeas corpus proceeding and that the habeas court is therefore required to examine the alleged mental illness of each petitioner in addition to any alleged procedural irregularities.”
State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 29 A.D.3d 221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · cites it 4× “27 [c]) and those retained in psychiatric facilities (Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15). Accordingly, Mental Hygiene Law *228 § 33.”
Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v. Wack, 75 N.Y.2d 751 (NY 1989). · cites it 5× “In this habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15, Supreme Court determined that petitioner was no longer mentally ill and ordered his release from custody.”
People ex rel. DeLia v. Munsey, 117 A.D.3d 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · cites it 16× “Ancillary to our determination, we must also decide whether a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ostensibly filed pursuant to CPLR article 70 on behalf of a person who is involuntarily hospitalized is substantively different from a petition for a writ brought under Mental…”
People ex rel. Noel B. v. Jones, 230 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 3× “ts or disbursements, the writ is reinstated and sustained to the extent that the respondent shall discharge the petitioner unless the Supreme Court, Kings County, commences a hearing within 15 days of the date of this Court’s decision and order to determine whether the…”
People Ex Rel. Thorpe v. Von Holden, 473 N.E.2d 14 (NY 1984). “20 detainee “in particular, the right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus as provided in Mental Hygiene Law §33.15” (1981 Report of NY Law Rev Comm, NY Legis Doc, 1981, No.”
State ex rel. Karur v. Carmichael, 41 A.D.3d 349 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “31, and its retention of the patient without legal status after his authorized retention expired on March 11, 2007 are troubling, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15 (b) required the court to “examine the facts concerning the person’s alleged mental disability and detention,” which was…”
Winslow v. O'Neill, 153 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 2× “In a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.”
Francis S. v. Stone, 995 F. Supp. 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “Petitioner may seek a writ of habeas under N.Y. Mental Hyg. L. § 33.15 (McKinney 1996).”
State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio, 10 Misc. 3d 851 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). “Respondent argues against the immediate release of the petitioners on the ground that this habeas corpus proceeding is governed by the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15, not CPLR article 70.”
In re Stefano, 140 Misc. 2d 801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988). “A more appropriate procedure may have been a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 33.15, but the court will, nevertheless, address the issue raised by this motion.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.