Brown v. Stone

66 F. Supp. 2d 412 (1999)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Brown v. Stone

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
66 F. Supp. 2d 412 (1999)

Facts

New York law required the state to provide free psychiatric care and treatment to the indigent. Thus, New York did not bill or sue indigent patients for such care or treatment. However, pursuant to a policy adopted by James Stone (defendant), the commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH), the state asserted counterclaims for payment against indigent patients or former patients who sued the OMH for damages in connection with the care or treatment the patients received from the OMH. Such counterclaims would be contingent on the patients winning their claims against the OMH and limited to the amount awarded to the patients. Limoni Brown (plaintiff), the administrator of the estate of a former indigent patient, sued the OMH regarding the patient’s care. In response, the state asserted a contingent counterclaim against Brown. Brown then sought a declaratory judgment that the OMH’s policy unconstitutionally chilled patients from obtaining compensation for injuries they suffered due to the care and treatment they received from the state, resulting in the OMH pleading contingent counterclaims against Brown. Brown moved to dismiss the OMH’s counterclaims, arguing that New York did not permit contingent counterclaims. The OMH opposed Brown’s motion, citing various New York decisions that it claimed supported the view that contingent counterclaims were permissible.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Block, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership