Matter of Michael R. v. State of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Michael R. v. State of New York

129 A.D.3d 978, 11 N.Y.S.3d 667

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

DecidedJune 17, 2015

Docket2014-10579

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 978 (Matter of Michael R. 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

Matter of Michael R. v. State of New York, 129 A.D.3d 978, 11 N.Y.S.3d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Michael R., an adjudicated sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality requiring civil management, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), dated July 22, 2014, as, upon a decision of the same court dated May 16, 2014, made after a hearing, denied that branch of his petition which was for the termination of his “strict and intensive supervision and treatment” regimen.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On a petition for termination of a regimen of “strict and intensive supervision and treatment,” “the attorney general shall have the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is currently a sex offender requiring civil management” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 [h]). A “sex offender requiring civil management” is a “sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [q]), which is defined as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the respondent established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant currently suffers from a “mental abnormality” and, thus, continues to require civil management in the form of a regimen of “strict and intensive supervision and treatment” (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03 [i]; 10.11 [h]; cf. Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213 [2015]).

Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Michael R., an adjudicated sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality requiring civil management, appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), dated July 22, 2014, as, upon a decision of the same court dated May 16, 2014, made after a hearing, denied that branch of his petition which was for the termination of his “strict and intensive supervision and treatment” regimen.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On a petition for termination of a regimen of “strict and intensive supervision and treatment,” “the attorney general shall have the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is currently a sex offender requiring civil management” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11 [h]). A “sex offender requiring civil management” is a “sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [q]), which is defined as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the respondent established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant currently suffers from a “mental abnormality” and, thus, continues to require civil management in the form of a regimen of “strict and intensive supervision and treatment” (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03 [i]; 10.11 [h]; cf. Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213 [2015]).

Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 978, 11 N.Y.S.3d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-michael-r-v-state-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack