State v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Grant

71 A.D.3d 1502, 896 N.Y.S.2d 700

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1502 (State v. Grant) 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

State v. Grant, 71 A.D.3d 1502, 896 N.Y.S.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered March 26, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, inter alia, determined that respondent is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment.

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 determining that he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) and releasing him under the conditions of a prior order imposing a regimen of SIST. Respondent is not aggrieved by the order appealed from inasmuch as he stipulated to the terms of [1503]*1503it, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511; Matter of State of New York v Cuevas, 49 AD3d 1324, 1326-1327 [2008]). In addition, the appeal has been rendered moot by a subsequent order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 directing the confinement of respondent as a dangerous sex offender (see generally People ex rel. Maldonado v Williams, 67 AD3d 1328 [2009]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (cf. Cuevas, 49 AD3d at 1325-1326; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann Marie Taddeo, J.), entered March 26, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, inter alia, determined that respondent is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment.

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 determining that he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) and releasing him under the conditions of a prior order imposing a regimen of SIST. Respondent is not aggrieved by the order appealed from inasmuch as he stipulated to the terms of [1503]*1503it, and the appeal therefore must be dismissed (see CPLR 5511; Matter of State of New York v Cuevas, 49 AD3d 1324, 1326-1327 [2008]). In addition, the appeal has been rendered moot by a subsequent order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 directing the confinement of respondent as a dangerous sex offender (see generally People ex rel. Maldonado v Williams, 67 AD3d 1328 [2009]), and the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein (cf. Cuevas, 49 AD3d at 1325-1326; see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1502, 896 N.Y.S.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grant-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack