MARTINEK, SHANNON v. STATE OF NEW YORK

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 5, 2013
DocketCA 12-00701
StatusPublished

This text of MARTINEK, SHANNON v. STATE OF NEW YORK (MARTINEK, SHANNON v. STATE OF NEW YORK) 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
MARTINEK, SHANNON v. STATE OF NEW YORK, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

581 CA 12-00701 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE OF SHANNON MARTINEK, CONSECUTIVE NO. 21915, FROM CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10.09, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, AND NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA (MEGAN E. DORR OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Joseph E. Fahey, A.J.), entered March 16, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other things, continued petitioner’s commitment to a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order determining, inter alia, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring continued confinement in a secure treatment facility pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. We dismiss the appeal as moot because a subsequent order has been entered that continues petitioner’s confinement for another year (see Matter of State of New York v Grant, 71 AD3d 1502, 1503; see also Robles v Evans, 100 AD3d 1455, 1455).

Entered: July 5, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

Related

State v. Grant
71 A.D.3d 1502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Robles v. Evans
100 A.D.3d 1455 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MARTINEK, SHANNON v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinek-shannon-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2013.