Rabinowitz v. James M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabinowitz v. James M.

63 A.D.3d 481, 879 N.Y.S.2d 715

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

DecidedJune 9, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 481 (Rabinowitz v. James M.) 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

Rabinowitz v. James M., 63 A.D.3d 481, 879 N.Y.S.2d 715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2008, which directed that defendant be transferred from a secure psychiatric facility to a nonsecure psychiatric facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the application court’s findings that while defendant continues to suffer from a mental illness, he no longer shows a level of dangerousness warranting retention in a secure facility, and that he otherwise meets the criteria for retention in a nonsecure facility (see Matter of David B., 97 NY2d 267, 276-279 [2002]; Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295, 305 [1995]; cf. Matter of Richard S., 6 AD3d 1039 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 700 [2004]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered on or about November 26, 2008, which directed that defendant be transferred from a secure psychiatric facility to a nonsecure psychiatric facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the application court’s findings that while defendant continues to suffer from a mental illness, he no longer shows a level of dangerousness warranting retention in a secure facility, and that he otherwise meets the criteria for retention in a nonsecure facility (see Matter of David B., 97 NY2d 267, 276-279 [2002]; Matter of George L., 85 NY2d 295, 305 [1995]; cf. Matter of Richard S., 6 AD3d 1039 [2004], appeal dismissed 3 NY3d 700 [2004]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and AbdusSalaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 481, 879 N.Y.S.2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinowitz-v-james-m-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack