You are here: / / 15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE P...

15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS.

The First Department determined the 15-month delay in holding respondent sex-offender’s Article 10 trial did not deprive him of due process. The court explained that the statutory 60-day time limit for holding the trial did not require dismissal of the petition and further explained and applied the four-point due process analysis:

​

The 60-day deadline by which a trial “shall” be commenced, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07(a), is not a “strict time limit[]” … . As there is no clear legislative intent to make compliance with that time frame a prerequisite to continued jurisdiction … , the failure to commence a trial within 60 days does not mandate dismissal of the petition … . Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) states repeatedly that failure to comply with various deadlines does not affect the validity of the petition or the various actions subject to those deadlines … . …

​

Respondent’s due process rights were not violated by the 15-month delay between his declaration of readiness for trial, after the probable cause determination, made upon his waiver of a probable cause hearing, and the start of the trial. Under the four-factor balancing test set forth in Barker v Wingo (407 US 514 [1972] … , the length of the delay may be considered presumptively prejudicial … . The second factor, the reason given for the delay (id. at 531), weighs only slightly against petitioner, because a considerable portion of the delay is attributable to respondent, the unavailability of the experts, and circumstances beyond petitioner’s control. …

The third Barker factor, respondent’s assertion of his rights (407 US at 531-532), weighs in respondent’s favor with respect to those adjournments to which he objected. However, his failure to retain any experts for, or to testify in, the article 10 proceedings, his consent to delays, his refusal to appear in court twice, and his engagement in abusive conduct directed against those associated with the proceeding suggest that respondent “did not desire an early judicial hearing” … . …

​

The fourth Barker factor, prejudice to respondent (407 US 532), weighs in petitioner’s favor. There was no oppressive pretrial incarceration, since respondent chose to be confined at Rikers Island, rather than at a secure mental health facility, during the proceedings … , and respondent’s ability to put on a defense was not affected by the delay. Matter of State of New York v Keith F., 2017 NY Slip Op 03276, 1st Dept 4-27-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, 15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, 15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS)

You might also like
Late Disclaimer on a Valid Ground Not Excused
​ IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REQUEST FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE BORROWER WAS DECEASED; BECAUSE, UNDER THE FACTS, A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE WAS NOT A PREREQUISITE FOR FILING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, THE REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE DID NOT HOLD THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IN ABEYANCE AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (FIRST DEPT).
A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Contractor Created Hazardous Condition by Inadequate Salting
IN ORDERING A NEW HEARING ON MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROOF PRESENTED BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL AT THE FIRST HEARING AND CONSIDERED “NEW” FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON ARSON FOURTH (RECKLESS) AS A LESSER INCLUDED OF ARSON SECOND (INTENTIONAL), NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER NYC FIREFIGHTER WAS DENIED ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT (ADR) BENEFITS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MEDICAL BOARD’S FINDINGS; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION BASED ON A RECORD ADEQUATE FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).

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

EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING... LOSS OF TRANSCRIPT OF LAST DAY OF BENCH TRIAL AND SENTENCING DID NOT PRECLUDE...