State v. Nelson D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Nelson D.

100 A.D.3d 418, 952 N.Y.S.2d 889

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Nelson D.. Read the opinion of the Court — 105 A.D.3d 968 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 8, 2012·Published

Opinion

[419]*419Amended order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), entered October 24, 2011, which directed that respondent, as a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST), reside at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that respondent should receive residential treatment at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment was permissible under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11, which prescribes conditions of supervision, including specification of residence and type of residence, that may be imposed as part of SIST.

Because the SIST regimen imposed was authorized under Mental Hygiene Law article 10, petitioner’s substantive due process rights were not offended (see Kansas v Hendricks, 521 US 346 [1997]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

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

[419]*419Amended order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), entered October 24, 2011, which directed that respondent, as a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST), reside at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination that respondent should receive residential treatment at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment was permissible under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11, which prescribes conditions of supervision, including specification of residence and type of residence, that may be imposed as part of SIST.

Because the SIST regimen imposed was authorized under Mental Hygiene Law article 10, petitioner’s substantive due process rights were not offended (see Kansas v Hendricks, 521 US 346 [1997]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.

State v. Nelson D., 100 A.D.3d 418, 952 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

100 A.D.3d 418 (State v. Nelson D.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related