You are here: / / STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT SEX OFFENDER WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL...
,

STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT SEX OFFENDER WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS BEHAVIOR, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING HIS BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RELEASE WITH STRICT SUPERVISION, AS OPPOSED TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the expert testimony offered by the State did not demonstrate the appellant sex offender was unable to control his behavior, requiring civil commitment, as opposed to having difficulty controlling his behavior, requiring strict supervision. Therefore appellant should be released under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment:

… [T]he State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the appellant has an “inability to control sexual misconduct” … . In this regard, the State relied on, inter alia, the testimony of Dr. Stuart Kirschner, a psychologist, at the mental abnormality trial; a “dispositional addendum” report that Kirschner submitted; and a report from a psychologist for the New York State Office of Mental Health, Dr. Trevor Floyd. While Kirschner testified that the appellant had difficulty controlling his actions due to certain impulse control problems, Kirschner also testified that it was “very difficult” to ascertain whether an individual committed a crime because he or she was unable to control his or her conduct or because he or she chose not to control it, and that the distinction between the two was largely “irrelevant.” This testimony, considered in conjunction with the other evidence presented by the State, was not sufficient to support a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant had an “inabilityto control sexual misconduct” … . Furthermore, Floyd’s report, which was based on his own interview with and psychological testing of the appellant, opined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant had an inability to control his behavior such that he was a danger to others. The appellant’s expert reached a similar conclusion, opining that the appellant was a “good candidate for release under conditions of strict and intensive supervision and treatment.” Matter of State of New York v Ted B., 2019 NY Slip Op 05550, Second Dept 7-10-19

 

You might also like
Child’s Disclosure of Sexual Abuse One Year After Abuse Ended Properly Admitted Under the “Prompt Outcry” Exception to the Hearsay Rule
PLAINTIFFS OBTAINED A NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE; PLANTIFFS NEED ONLY SERVE ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Source of Information in Police Report Unknown—Reversible Error to Admit Hearsay in the Report
The Arbitrator Had the Power to Determine Whether Respondent Insurer Was a Motor Vehicle Insurer Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Pursuant to the No-Fault Insurance Law—The Arbitrator’s Conclusion that the Respondent Insurer Was Not a Motor Vehicle Insurer Had a Rational Basis
GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CAUSES OF ACTION IN AMENDED COMPLAINT RELATED BACK TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND WERE NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Denied—Infancy Alone Not Sufficient Reason to Allow Late Notice
THE CUSTODY AWARD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING; WHERE A CUSTODY AWARD IS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING THE COURT SHOULD ARTICULATE THE FACTORS CONSIDERED (SECOND 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

WITNESS DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT A LINEUP, SAYING ONLY SHE WAS ‘LEANING... NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES...