State v. Garfield Q.
| Decision Date | 14 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 528727 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE of New York, Respondent, v. GARFIELD Q., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
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.
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
-
Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co.
...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. Finlandia......
-
Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co.
...the community 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 ......
-
Davies v. S.A. Dunn & Co.
... ... public nuisance. We agree. When assessing a motion to dismiss ... for failure to state a cause of action ( see CPLR ... 3211 [a] [7]), this Court "affords the complaint a ... liberal construction, accepts the facts alleged ... ...
-
State v. Robert A.
...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 analys......