You are here: / / SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION...

SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department determined a sex offender’s petition to terminate his strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) should have been granted:

… [T]he State … failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant had “serious difficulty in controlling” himself from committing sex offenses within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i). The only evidence in the record was that, while the appellant had a long history of committing sex offenses, the appellant had not committed any offense since 2002, had complied with all of his SIST requirements, and had been successful in treatment, where he learned and used skills and modalities to help him control himself from engaging in criminal sexual conduct … . Matter of State of New York v (Anonymous), 2016 NY Slip Op 06717, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

MEMTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
THERE WERE DISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING WHETHER DEFENDANT BREACHED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED FACTS; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY HAD APPARENT AUTHORITY TO SIGN STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PARKED VEHICLE WAS STRUCK FROM BEHIND BY DEFENDANT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE VIOLATED TRAFFIC RULES RE: PARKING SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Requirements for “Breach of Employment Contract” and “Labor Law Article 6” Actions
THE J.H.O./REFEREE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY CPLR 3104 OR ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT TO CONSIDER AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE AMENDED BILL OF PARTICULARS; THE ISSUE PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BELOW, THEREFORE IT MAY BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; ORDER STRIKING THE COMPLAINT VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR ARTICLE 63-A IS CONSTITUTIONAL; THE STATUTE ALLOWS ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK ORDER PROHIBITING A RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM BASED UPON EVIDENCE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS... DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...