In re George L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re George L.

203 A.D.2d 572, 612 N.Y.S.2d 945

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 572 (In re George L.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re George L., 203 A.D.2d 572, 612 N.Y.S.2d 945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the petitioner, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.), dated January 15, [573]*5731992, which, after a rehearing and review of a commitment order of the same court (King, J.), dated October 31, 1991, committed him to a secure facility for six months pursuant to CPL 330.20 (1) (b) upon finding that he suffered from a "dangerous mental illness”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The District Attorney established by a preponderance of the evidence (see, People v Escobar, 61 NY2d 431) that the petitioner suffered from a dangerous mental disorder which required his continued commitment to a secure facility (see, CPL 330.20 [1] [c]).

We note that the expiration of the commitment order does not render this appeal academic (see, People v Salem, 122 AD2d 85). Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the petitioner, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.), dated January 15, [573]*5731992, which, after a rehearing and review of a commitment order of the same court (King, J.), dated October 31, 1991, committed him to a secure facility for six months pursuant to CPL 330.20 (1) (b) upon finding that he suffered from a "dangerous mental illness”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The District Attorney established by a preponderance of the evidence (see, People v Escobar, 61 NY2d 431) that the petitioner suffered from a dangerous mental disorder which required his continued commitment to a secure facility (see, CPL 330.20 [1] [c]).

We note that the expiration of the commitment order does not render this appeal academic (see, People v Salem, 122 AD2d 85). Thompson, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 572, 612 N.Y.S.2d 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-george-l-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack