You are here: / / People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled...
,

People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled Respondent, Who Had Been In the Care and Custody of the OPWDD Since His Acquittal of a Criminal Charge By Reason of Mental Disease or Defect, Was “Mentally Ill”—Respondent’s Release Was Appropriate

Respondent is mildly developmentally disabled and was committed to the care and custody of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) after acquittal of a criminal charge by reason of mental disease or defect.  The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled respondent could be released to a supervised intermediate care facility subject compliance with a service plan.  The court determined the People did not meet their burden of proving respondent met the relevant statutory definition of “mentally ill,” i.e., the definition which applies to the developmentally disabled:

If the court finds that a person committed pursuant to CPL 330.20 does not have a dangerous mental disorder but is mentally ill, that person must be confined in a nonsecure facility (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). If the court finds that the person is no longer mentally ill, it must release the person with an order of conditions (see CPL 330.20 [12]…). For purposes of CPL 330.20, a person with a developmental disability is considered “mentally ill” if he or she “is in need of care and treatment as a resident in the in-patient services of a developmental center or other residential facility for the . . . developmentally disabled under the jurisdiction of [OPWDD]” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). The DA had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent met the statutory definition of a “mentally ill” person (see CPL 330.20 [12]…]). * * *

…[T]he statute provides a different definition of “mentally ill” for individuals who have developmental disabilities in addition to one or more diagnosed mental disorders (see CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). For those individuals with developmental disabilities, the statute does not require that their judgment be so impaired by a mental illness that they are “unable to understand the need for such care and treatment” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]); this makes sense, as such inability could be related to developmental disabilities as opposed to mental illness. Even if that additional factor applied here, however, respondent acknowledged in his testimony that he needed constant supervision, indicating that he understood the need for care and treatment. While the DA’s expert disagreed that respondent had any such understanding, Supreme Court found respondent credible and did not rely on that expert’s testimony. Thus, even under the definition of mentally ill that applies to individuals without developmental disabilities, the DA did not meet his burden. Matter of Arto ZZ, 2014 NY Slip Op 07053, 3rd Dept 10-16-14

 

You might also like
POLICE DISCIPLINE PROPERLY CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, DESPITE STATUTORY PROVISION PLACING DISCIPLINE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER.
AGREEMENT ALLOWING CASINO GAMBLING ON ONEIDA NATION LAND DID NOT VIOLATE TOWNS’ “HOME RULE” RIGHTS.
DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE, NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CUSTODY/VISITATION MATTERS BASED UPON THE PARTIES’ PRESENCE IN NEW YORK.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO FATHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE MOTHER’S PARENTING TIME AND TELEPHONE AND ELECTRONIC CONTACT WITH THE CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT). ​
ACTION BY YARD WASTE BUSINESS WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP), DEFAMATION AND RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST NEIGHBOR BASED ON STATEMENTS MADE BY THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE YARD WASTE BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR WHO ARGUED DEFENDANT’S APPEAL WAS A CLERK FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE; PRIOR DECISION AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION VACATED AND CASE REMITTED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (THIRD DEPT) ​
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Elements of Florida “Theft” Statute and New York Larceny Statutes... Out-of-State Dismissal with Prejudice Barred Similar New York Action Under Doctrine...