You are here: / / COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND...
,

COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, over a two-justice dissent, determined that counsel for a civilly committed sex offender (D.J.) was not entitled to attend meetings about the appropriate treatment of the sex offender:

Having been adjudicated “a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.10 [a]), petitioner D.J. was committed to the St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center and enrolled in the Sex Offender Treatment Program. Respondent Commissioner of Mental Health is required to “develop and implement a treatment plan” for D.J. and others in his position (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.10 [b]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 29.13 [a]) and, “[i]n causing such a plan to be prepared or . . . revised,” the patient and specified individuals must be “interviewed and provided an opportunity to actively participate” (Mental Hygiene Law § 29.13 [b]).

In 2016, D.J. asked that his counsel in the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding, assigned through petitioner Mental Hygiene Legal Service (hereinafter MHLS), accompany him to treatment planning meetings. The requests of D.J. and, later, his counsel were denied, with the chief of service for the Sex Offender Treatment Program, Bryan Shea, explaining that counsel was not entitled to attend treatment planning meetings as a matter of law and that counsel’s presence would be therapeutically counterproductive. Shea left open the possibility that a MHLS attorney could participate in a patient’s treatment planning, but explained that such would be contingent upon the attorney having a “genuine[] interest[] in the care of the patient” and guaranteeing “that [he or she was] no longer acting in the role of legal representative” and would keep “any information [received] during treatment planning . . . confidential” from MHLS. * * *

Counsel from MHLS … comes from an agency whose “statutory mission is to provide legal assistance to the residents of certain facilities” such as D.J., and legal advocacy may easily conflict with crafting an appropriate treatment plan if the medically advisable treatment conflicts with the client’s legal goals … . Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Sullivan, 2017 NY Slip Op 05656, 3rd Dept 7-13-17

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT)/SEX OFFENDERS (MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, ATTORNEYS, COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
Because the Statute Relied Upon by the State Police to Deny a FOIL Request Did Not Pertain to the Sought Documents, the Request Should Have Been Granted/Court Cannot Substitute Another Ground for Denial
Failure to Adequately Describe Location of Slip and Fall Rendered Notice of Intention Jurisdictionally Defective
Department of Health’s Reduction of Medicaid Reimbursement to Nursing Homes Upheld
FAMILY COURT RELIED ON HEARSAY (WHAT MOTHER TOLD THE CASEWORKER) IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST FATHER, NEGLECT FINDINGS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
IF A PATIENT DOES NOT REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ON AN “EMERGENCY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION AND AN “INVOLUNTARY” HOSPITAL ADMISSION, IT IS ERROR TO COMBINE THEM; HOWEVER A PATIENT COULD REQUEST A COMBINED HEARING AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE COMBINED HEARING IN THIS CASE (THIRD DEPT).
BEST EVIDENCE RULE APPLIES TO VIDEO EVIDENCE AS WELL AS WRITINGS; ERROR IN FAILING TO EXCLUDE THE VIDEO EVIDENCE WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE CLAIMANT MADE A FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF HER INVOLVEMENT IN AN ONLINE BUSINESS WHILE SHE WAS RECEIVING WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS, SHE WAS FORTHRIGHT ABOUT HER INVOLVEMENT WHEN QUESTIONED; PERMANENT DISQUALIFICATION FROM FUTURE BENEFITS WAS NOT WARRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLE PROPERLY RESCINDED BASED UPON PETITIONER’S BEHAVIOR AT THE RESCISSION HEARING AND VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS PROVIDED AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN RELEASED (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PRIME CONTRACTOR WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER, LABOR LAW 200 AND 241(6)... QUESTION OF FACT RE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS INTERSECTION...