-2026-01-13%20at%2013_44_14.png)
Awareness
​Psychiatric Confinement & Liberty
Our features
-2026-01-13%20at%2009_13_26.png)
-2026-01-13%20at%2009_08_edited.jpg)
-2026-01-13%20at%2008_55_20.png)
3
Potential Legal Violations
Unauthorized practice of medicine: Education Law §§ 6512, 6521–6522
False reporting: Penal Law § 240.50 and related provisions
False instrument: Penal Law § 175.35
Unlawful imprisonment: Penal Law §§ 135.05, 135.10
Medical confidentiality: Education Law § 6530; PHL § 18; HIPAA
Professional misconduct: Education Law § 6530
​
2
Legal cases
Matter of Robert A. v. Chantelle C. — New York Family Court, 2018
​
The mother and father were involved in a Family Court proceeding. After the mother failed to appear, the court proceeded against her on the father's petition. Following the hearing, the Family Court found that the mother committed harassment in the second degree, aggravated harassment, and stalking in the fourth degree.
The resulting three-year order of protection prohibited her from contacting or approaching the father, his home, school, business, workplace, or places where he was likely to be. It also prohibited contact by mail, telephone, email, voicemail, text message, social media, or through third parties.
1
-
What is involuntary psychiatric confinement?
-
Mental Hygiene Law § 9.41
-
When may police intervene?
-
What safeguards exist?
-
What rights does the patient have?
-
What happens when collateral information is disputed?
Evidence & Documentation:Â these records as evidence that could establish who communicated what and when.
-
Medical records
-
Psychiatric records
-
Telephone records
-
Text messages
-
Police reports
-
911 records
-
Body-camera footage
-
FDNY records
-
Hospital collateral-contact notes
-
Electronic audit logs
-
Court records
-
Forensic evaluations
1
How to Report a Concern
-
Hospital complaints
-
State professional misconduct complaints
-
Health-information privacy complaints
-
Civil litigation
-
Court review
-
Law-enforcement referrals where appropriate
2
Evidence Before Conclusions
This project does not ask the public to determine guilt. It documents allegations, identifies evidence, identifies potentially applicable law, and asks appropriate authorities to independently investigate the facts and determine whether criminal, civil, professional, or administrative violations occurred.
3
Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for educational and advocacy purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice.
Affidavit & Supporting Documents:Â Create a document library with:
-
Chronology
-
Statement of Alleged Departures from Accepted Medical Practice
-
Legal analysis
-
Motion concerning limited disclosure
-
Supporting exhibits
Organize files to assist in determining criminal accountability
Other useful cases
A useful federal stalking case involving a spouse:Â United States v. Curley
This one reverses the gender configuration, but is highly relevant to how federal courts analyze stalking within a marriage/divorce context.
In United States v. Curley, the defendant was convicted of interstate stalking his wife under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and violating a protective order. His conduct included following his wife, tracking her vehicle with a GPS device, and other conduct after their marriage deteriorated. The Second Circuit discussed how evidence of prior domestic abuse could be relevant to proving intent to harass or intimidate in a federal stalking prosecution.Â
The conviction was ultimately vacated and remanded for a new trial, but not because the court found that the stalking statute didn't apply. The appellate issue concerned evidentiary errors under Rule 404(b).Â
State-Level Precedents on Medical Coercion: Recent litigation in state courts has begun to address the intersection of medical privacy and administrative confinement. These cases highlight the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards when clinical decisions result in the deprivation of liberty. Attorneys are increasingly referencing state-specific 'Bill of Rights' clauses to challenge the validity of prolonged psychiatric observation without clear evidence of imminent danger, setting a higher bar for collateral information verification.
Federal case involving a woman charged with cyberstalking
United States v. Harrison, W.D.N.Y. 2018
This one is interesting because the defendant was Elizabeth Harrison, a woman, and the federal government charged her with cyberstalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2).
The government alleged that Harrison engaged in threatening harassment of an Assistant U.S. Attorney because the AUSA had twice prosecuted the father of two of Harrison's children. Harrison was also charged with making a false statement to federal law-enforcement officers.Â
However, this is not a mother stalking the father of her children. The victim was the prosecutor.Â
Â
​
The strongest New York federal case found for the medical records + spouse + alleged extortion combination is:
Nabatkhorian v. County of Nassau, E.D.N.Y.
This case is unusually close to the scenario you described.
The plaintiff, Faramarz Nabatkhorian, was married to Katrin. During marital difficulties, Katrin went to a physician and obtained medical records and photographs concerning an alleged sexual assault.
The plaintiff alleged that the medical report was falsified and that Katrin obtained it so that she could extort money from him. The allegations went further: after the couple separated, Katrin allegedly presented the medical records in Family Court, obtained a temporary order of protection, and the plaintiff alleged that people acting on her behalf attempted to obtain money from him in connection with the accusations.Â
The complaint alleged that a rabbi acting on Katrin's behalf attempted to obtain money from the husband and that the husband subsequently recorded a conversation that he claimed documented an attempted extortion.
But this distinction is crucial
The federal court did not find that the wife had actually committed blackmail.
Those were allegations made by the husband in his civil lawsuit. The federal court was deciding claims against Nassau County and other defendants, including issues surrounding probable cause and the conduct of law enforcement. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claims.Â
Â
So this case can accurately be cited as:
A federal New York case in which a husband alleged that his wife obtained medical documentation concerning an alleged sexual assault and used it, together with demands for money, as part of an extortion scheme.
That distinction matters enormously if you're using the case in actual litigation.