You are here: / / INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER...
, ,

INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the evidence at this civil commitment hearing supported a finding defendant was not suffering from a “dangerous mental disorder,” but rather was “mentally ill,” within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 330.20:

… County Court accepted the appellant’s plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to the charge of strangulation in the second degree. After the court issued an examination order pursuant to CPL 330.20(3), the appellant was remanded to Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric … , where he was evaluated by three psychiatric examiners. Two of the examiners found him to be suffering from a dangerous mental disorder, while the third determined that he was mentally ill. * * *

The opinions expressed by the People’s experts were based, in large part, upon speculation and an overly narrow focus on the appellant’s conduct during the relatively brief period of time between the instant offense and the time when the appellant began taking medication. As evidenced by the unrebutted testimony of the appellant’s experts, the appellant has had no history of relapses into violent behavior. Moreover, he had no notable history of substance or alcohol abuse, had always been compliant with treatment, both during the 18-month period he was released on bail and during his subsequent time at Mid-Hudson, and had a positive support system. Therefore, the preponderance of the record evidence did not support the conclusion of the People’s experts that the appellant suffered from a dangerous mental disorder…  Contrary to the County Court’s determination, the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated only that the appellant was mentally ill … .

Accordingly, the County Court’s findings of fact must be vacated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for the entry of a finding that the appellant is mentally ill pursuant to CPL 330.20(1)(d), and the issuance of such further orders as may be appropriate under the Mental Hygiene Law and CPL 330.20(7). Matter of Eric F., 2017 NY Slip Op 05594, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

CRIMINAL LAW (CIVIL COMMITMENT, INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT)/MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CIVIL COMMITMENT, INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT)/MENTAL ILLNESS (CRIMINAL LAW, INSUFFICIENT PROOF DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 2ND DEPT)

​

You might also like
Criteria for Respondeat Superior (Scope of Employment) Liability Succinctly Explained
RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral Modification Even Where the Written Agreement Prohibits Oral Modification
TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR AND NEED NOT OBTAIN A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR; ANY DELAYS AFTER THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD ARE IRRELEVANT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEMAND FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IN THE PLEADINGS (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A WATER LEAK ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY WHICH THE CITY CLAIMED CAUSED A SINK HOLE IN THE ABUTTING ROAD; PLAINTIFF PAID FOR EXCAVATING THE AREA AND FIXING THE ROAD; PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY ALLEGING THERE WAS NO WATER LEAK AND THE CITY NEGLIGENTLY ORDERED HER TO REPAIR THE ROAD; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF), BUT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON PLAINTFF’S PAYING FOR THE REPAIR OF THE PUBLIC ROAD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth

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

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY... PUTATIVE FATHER’S REQUEST FOR A DNA PATERNITY TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...