You are here: / / STATE’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SHOULD BE...

STATE’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH RESPONDENT SEX OFFENDER SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED. ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the state did not demonstrate respondent (sex offender) should be subject to civil commitment. The conclusory allegations of the state’s expert were belied by the respondent’s record:

The testimony of the State’s experts fell short of the “detailed psychological portrait” necessary to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent’s disorders result in his having serious difficulty controlling sexually-offending conduct … . Although respondent’s criminal history includes sexual misconduct, the evidence at trial showed that he spent 24 years in prison without any inappropriate sexual behavior, and successfully completed multiple sex offender treatment programs, including one that he took voluntarily … . The State’s experts’ conclusory testimony that respondent showed only limited gains from the treatment programs is belied by his sex offender treatment records, which are replete with notes showing that he has good impulse control, takes full responsibility for his crimes, expresses remorse for the harm to his victims, and demonstrates honesty and empathy in disclosing his sex offending behavior. Matter of State of New York v Howard H., 2017 NY Slip Op 05311, 1st Dept 6-29-17

 

You might also like
ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS PROPERLY AWARDED TO MOTHER, BUT THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED THROUGH THE HEARING DATE (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION ISSUES TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL; THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR MODIFYING VISITATION ONCE FATHER HAS GAINED INSIGHT INTO THE CHILD’S NEEDS WAS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED TO LIFT THE DOOR ONTO A TRUCK; NO LIFTING DEVICES WERE AVAILABLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
A PENALTY OR DISGORGEMENT STEMMING FROM IMPROPER PROFIT-TAKING BY BEAR STEARNS IS NOT AN INSURABLE LOSS, EVEN IF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROFIT-TAKING WENT TO OTHERS AND NOT TO BEAR STEARNS (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY EXERCISED OVER AN OUT-OF-STATE CATHOLIC DIOCESE WHICH EMPLOYED DEFENDANT PRIEST WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO A NEW YORK PARISH (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​
UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION.

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

TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING REMITTED FOR AGE-APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE TAILGATE,...