New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 (2026)

Review of court authorization to retain an involuntary patient

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§ 9.35 Review of court authorization to retain an involuntary patient.
  If a person who has been denied release or whose retention, continued
retention, or transfer and continued retention has been authorized
pursuant to this article, or any relative or friend in his behalf, be
dissatisfied with any such order he may, within thirty days after the
making of any such order, obtain a rehearing and a review of the
proceedings already had and of such order upon a petition to a justice
of the supreme court other than the judge or justice presiding over the
court making such order. Such justice shall cause a jury to be summoned
and shall try the question of the mental illness and the need for
retention of the patient so authorized to be retained. Any such patient
or the person applying on his behalf for such review may waive the trial
of the fact by a jury and consent in writing to trial of such fact by
the court. No such petition for rehearing and review shall be made by
anyone other than the person so authorized to be retained or the father,
mother, husband, wife, or child of such person, unless the petitioner
shall have first obtained the leave of the court upon good cause shown.
If the verdict of the jury, or the decision of the court when jury trial
has been waived, be that such person does not have a mental illness or
is not in need of retention the justice shall forthwith discharge him,
but if the verdict of the jury, or the decision of the court where a
jury trial has been waived, be that such person has a mental illness and
is in need of retention the justice shall certify that fact and make an
order authorizing continued retention under the original order. Such
order shall be presented, at the time of authorization of continued
retention of such mentally ill person, to, and filed with, the director
of the hospital in which the person with a mental illness is authorized
to be retained, and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the department
by such director and filed in the office thereof. Proceedings under the
order shall not be stayed pending an appeal therefrom, except upon an
order of a justice of the supreme court, made upon a notice and after a
hearing, with provisions made therein for such temporary care or
confinement of the alleged person with a mental illness as may be deemed
necessary.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Jamie R. v. Consilvio, 844 N.E.2d 285 (NY 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jamie R. v. Consilvio, 844 N.E.2d 285 (NY 2006). · cites it 12× “20 (16) and Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35. A second hearing, known as rehearing and review, was held before a jury in New York County Supreme Court.”

Jamie R. v. Consilvio, 17 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 6× “20 (16) and Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35, for rehearing and review by a jury of the October 10 recommitment order, naming the Kirby Center director as party respondent, and challenging the finding of Supreme Court, Dutchess County, that he was mentally ill.”

Matter of Norman D., 818 N.E.2d 642 (NY 2004). · cites it 3× “may waive the trial of [the or such] fact by a jury and consent in writing to trial of such fact by the court” (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.35, 15.35). Such a proceeding, by judge or jury, is a review of the earlier record as well as any new evidence presented by the parties…”

Daniel R. v. Wack, 167 Misc. 2d 74 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 8× “20 [16]; Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35.) Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that the relief sought, viz.”

Robert C. v. Wack, 167 Misc. 2d 677 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 7× “In this proceeding, petitioner seeks a rehearing and review (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35) of the most recent retention order.”

Maureen A. v. Wack, 153 Misc. 2d 600 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991). · cites it 6× “20 [16]; Mental Hygiene Law §§ 9.35, 15.35) of an order committing or retaining an unwilling patient to or in a State mental hospital, is limited to the evidence heard by the Justice who rendered the disputed order of commitment or retention.”

State v. Myron P., 981 N.E.2d 772 (NY 2012). · cites it 2× “” Respondent’s desire to proceed under article 9 was also rooted in his argument that, under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 he would be entitled to a jury trial on “the question of mental illness and the need for retention,” but under article 10, the question whether his condition…”

Richard H. v. Consilvio, 6 A.D.3d 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 3× “20 (16) provides that an individual who is dissatisfied with an order of commitment or retention may obtain a rehearing and review under Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35. That section provides: “If a person who has been denied release or whose retention, continued retention, or…”

Barber v. Rochester Psychiatric Ctr., 250 A.D.2d 87 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · cites it 4× “Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 authorizes jury review only on the issues of mental illness and the need for retention, but does not mention “dangerous mental disorder” (see, Mental Hygiene Law § 9.”

State v. Myron P., 86 A.D.3d 26 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 2× “On the other hand, under Mental Hygiene Law article 9, while the court initially determines if a respondent is mentally ill and in need of involuntary care (see Mental Hygiene Law § 9.31), upon request, the respondent is entitled to a rehearing by a jury to determine the…”

Cohen v. Anne C., 301 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 3× “” Consistent with the procedures prescribed by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35 (which provides for review of a court order authorizing retention of a patient in a mental health facility), the issue of whether respondent continued to meet the criteria for AOT was tried to a *447 jury,…”

Anonymous v. Carmichael, 284 A.D.2d 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · cites it 2× “), entered February 1, 2001, which, after a trial pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.35, directed that petitioner be released from the Bronx Psychiatric Center (BPC), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) for a judgment…”

Show all 56 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.