You are here: Home / Civil Commitment / RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED...
, ,

RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT).

image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the record of a retention hearing for an insanity acquittee need not be sealed:

​

Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 does not, as respondent contends, require that the record of his retention proceeding be sealed. …

Respondent accepted a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and, therefore, “avoid[ed] criminal penalties and . . . [became] subject to the CPL 330.20 scheme” … . As the Court of Appeals has consistently recognized, “[t]his places insanity acquittees in a significantly different posture than involuntarily committed civil patients” and, thus, justifies “rational differences between procedures for commitment and release applicable to defendants found not responsible and persons involuntarily committed under the Mental Hygiene Law” … . The distinction between an insanity acquittee, as we have here, and an involuntarily committed civil patient is apparent by the Legislature’s enactment of a separate statutory scheme — CPL 330.20 — to address the commitment and retention procedures for persons found not responsible for their crimes by reason of mental disease or defect. The detailed statutory framework of CPL 330.20 does not include a provision that requires, or even contemplates, the sealing of these commitment and retention proceedings. Nor does the relevant legislative history indicate that the Legislature intended for these proceedings — which arise only after a criminal defendant affirmatively places his or her mental competency in issue — to be sealed from the public … . Matter of James Q., 2017 NY Slip Op 06222, 3rd Dept 8-17-17

 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))/CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY ACQUITTEE, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT)/INSANITY ACQUITTEE  (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))/RETENTION HEARING (INSANITY ACQUITTEE, (CRIMINAL LAW, RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED (THIRD DEPT))/

/by
You might also like
Estate of Mortgage-Holder Is a Necessary Party In a Foreclosure Proceeding
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF'S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT'S CAR 3RD DEPT.
Claimant Not Entitled to Benefits For Time Spent Working Out of House 
Aunt Met Her Burden of Establishing Extraordinary Circumstances Overcoming Mother's Superior Right to Custody of Children/Appellate Division Has Authority to Make Those Findings Where Family Court Failed to Do So
After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct
Question of Fact Whether Negligent Supervision Was the Proximate Cause of the Injuries Plaintiff's Son Suffered in an Attack by Another Student--the School Was Aware of Prior Assaultive Behavior by the Attacker and the School Was Aware of Recent Threats of Violence (Against Plaintiff's Son) by the Attacker---The Court Noted that, In a Summary Judgment Motion, the Evidence Is Viewed in the Light Most Favorable to the Nonmovant
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND (2) PLAINTIFF, AS A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT NOT MET.
Equitable Relief Sought for the Purpose of Determining a Money Judgment---Plaintiffs Entitled to Jury Trial

Categories

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

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE... 42 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT ADEQUATELY...