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
NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED A STUDENT, ACTIONS WERE VIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ABUSE DID NOT OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
Providing a False Name During Booking Did Not Trigger the Need for a Miranda Warning
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HER TO SLIP ON A STAIRWAY STEP BUT SHE TESTIFIED SHE LOOKED FOR SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO AND THERE WAS NO HANDRAIL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER FALL (SECOND DEPT).
Law Firm Representing Wife in a Divorce Proceeding Entitled to Charging Lien Pursuant to Judiciary Law 475 But Not Entitled to Money Judgment with Interest
DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING IN THE LITIGATION FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF OVER $34,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS IN THIS DIVORCE CASE; HOWEVER A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO APPORTION THE FEES BETWEEN THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
MANDAMUS PETITION TO COMPEL JUDGES TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER DECIDING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO REARGUE HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION GRANTED (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...