State v. Garfield Q., 528727

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtMulvey, J.
Citation183 A.D.3d 1055,122 N.Y.S.3d 459
Docket Number528727
Decision Date14 May 2020
Parties In the Matter of STATE of New York, Respondent, v. GARFIELD Q., Appellant.

183 A.D.3d 1055
122 N.Y.S.3d 459

In the Matter of STATE of New York, Respondent,
v.
GARFIELD Q., Appellant.

528727

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: March 24, 2020
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2020


Sheila E. Shea, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Albany (Brent R. Stack of counsel), for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Clark, J.P., Mulvey, Devine, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Mulvey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (J. Sise, J.), entered October 2, 2018 in Montgomery County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, to find respondent to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.

122 N.Y.S.3d 460

Respondent was serving a prison term for his conviction of, among other things, criminal sexual act in the first degree. As respondent was about to be released, petitioner commenced this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding seeking an order finding respondent to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement in a secure treatment facility. Respondent waived his right to a jury trial. Following a nonjury trial, at which testimony was received from three expert psychologists and respondent himself, Supreme Court determined that respondent suffered from a mental abnormality and was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, and committed him to a secure treatment facility. Respondent appeals.

We affirm. At a trial, the factfinder "shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality" ( Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[d] ); if so, "then the court shall consider whether the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision" ( Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ). "If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has a mental abnormality...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., 530994, 531613
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 21, 2021
    ...Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 [citations omitted]; accord Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d at 1055, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 ). The injury sustained must be "different in kind, not merely in degree" ( 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v.......
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., 2021-05751
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • October 21, 2021
    ...at large" (532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at 292 [citations omitted]; accord Duffy v Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d at 1055). The injury sustained must be "different in kind, not merely in degree" (532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at......
  • State v. Robert A., 527232
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 22, 2020
    ...if not confined to a secure treatment facility" ( Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e] ; see Matter of State of New York v. Garfield Q., 183 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 122 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2020] ; Matter of State of New York v. Jamaal A., 167 A.D.3d at 1527, 90 N.Y.S.3d 772 ). Notably, Supreme Court's a......
  • James WW. v. State, 531776
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 6, 2022
    ...requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision" ( Matter of State of New York v. Garfield Q., 183 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 122 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 916, 2020 WL 6142261 [2020] ; see Menta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., 530994, 531613
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 21, 2021
    ...Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 750 N.E.2d 1097 [citations omitted]; accord Duffy v. Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d at 1055, 124 N.Y.S.3d 110 ). The injury sustained must be "different in kind, not merely in degree" ( 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v.......
  • Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co., 2021-05751
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • October 21, 2021
    ...at large" (532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at 292 [citations omitted]; accord Duffy v Baldwin, 183 A.D.3d at 1055). The injury sustained must be "different in kind, not merely in degree" (532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d at......
  • State v. Robert A., 527232
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 22, 2020
    ...if not confined to a secure treatment facility" ( Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e] ; see Matter of State of New York v. Garfield Q., 183 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 122 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2020] ; Matter of State of New York v. Jamaal A., 167 A.D.3d at 1527, 90 N.Y.S.3d 772 ). Notably, Supreme Court's a......
  • James WW. v. State, 531776
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 6, 2022
    ...requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision" ( Matter of State of New York v. Garfield Q., 183 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 122 N.Y.S.3d 459 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 916, 2020 WL 6142261 [2020] ; see Menta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT