You are here: / / RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT...
,

RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST), SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under the Mental Hygiene Law. Supreme Court had found respondent was entitled to release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST).

Throughout the entirety of the respondent’s confinement and incarceration, he has never successfully completed any sex offender treatment program. The respondent was violent and “destructive” in group therapy, and repeatedly threatened and assaulted his treatment providers and other staff members. During interviews with treatment providers and evaluators, the respondent threatened to kill the judge who sentenced him; indicated that he derived excitement out of humiliating, tormenting, hunting, and hurting other people; and indicated that he kept a “revenge” list in his mind of people he intended to retaliate against. The respondent also repeatedly feigned psychiatric illnesses that he did not have in an attempt to manipulate the evaluators. Up until the time of the subject dispositional hearing, the respondent continued to make threats and express a desire to kill facility staff members. …

The State presented the testimony of two experts, each of whom opined to a reasonable or high degree of psychological certainty that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. Both experts diagnosed the respondent with several disorders that affect his emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity in a manner making it likely that the respondent would engage in recidivist violent sexual offense behavior again. Both experts’ testimony also established that the respondent is presently unable to control his behavior because he has steadfastly refused to meaningfully engage in any treatment program. Each of the experts believed that the respondent’s disorders were treatable, but because the respondent had not successfully completed treatment to resolve his disorders, deviance, offense cycle, or triggers, the disorders remained untreated, and the respondent lacked the ability to control his behavior. Matter of State of New York v Raul L., 2020 NY Slip Op 04479, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER AN EMPTY MILK CRATE ON A CARPETED FLOOR; THE CONDITION WAS DEEMED “OPEN AND OBVIOUS” AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLING DEFENDANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAD REVERSED ON APPEAL, DETERMINING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; WHEN SUPREME COURT WROTE A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S DECISION IT IMPROPERLY ADDED A SENTENCE WHICH WAS NOT IN THE DECISION; A JUDGMENT BASED UPON AN APPELLATE DECISION MUST STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE DECISION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD COMPLETED THE PERIOD OF INCARCERATION IMPOSED IN THIS SUPPORT ARREARS PROCEEDING, THE COMMITMENT ORDER IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ATTACHED TO VIOLATING SUPPORT ALLEGATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE JUDICIAL BIAS ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE SECOND DEPT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE FIRST TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
A BLOCKED TRACHEOSTOMY TUBE IS A FORESEEABLE EVENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANT ANESTHESIOLOGIST WAS TRAINED AND PREPARED, THEREFORE THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; THE USUAL RULES FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).
​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE OUT–OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 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

ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM’S FACIAL SCARS WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY NO DESCRIPTION... NOTIFICATION OF AN INTENTION TO CANCEL AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY IF A QUESTIONNAIRE...