You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE...
,

THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT TO RAPE, ASSAULT AND OTHER CHARGES, SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER REQUIRING CONTINUED PLACEMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent constituted a danger to himself and others and should remain in a secure facility. Respondent had entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect to rape, assault, criminal possession of a weapon and endangering the welfare of a child. Supreme Court had found that respondent was no longer suffering from a dangerous mental disorder and placed him in a nonsecure facility:

To establish that a person suffers from a dangerous mental disorder requiring commitment in a secure facility, the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the person suffers from a “mental illness,” as that term is statutorily defined (see Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03 [20]), and “that because of such condition he [or she] constitutes a physical danger to himself [or herself] or others” (CPL 330.20 [1] [c]). * * *

Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s evidence and instead concluded that respondent no longer suffered from a dangerous mental disorder, implicitly crediting the opinion of respondent’s expert. However, the court’s factual findings were self-contradictory. Supreme Court credited petitioner’s expert’s diagnoses of respondent, finding, among other things, that respondent has bipolar disorder and a traumatic brain injury. These diagnoses, which cause impaired judgment and impulse control, contributed to the opinion of petitioner’s expert that respondent constituted a present danger to himself and to his female peers. Without explanation, respondent’s expert omitted the diagnoses of bipolar disorder and traumatic brain injury. In concluding that respondent no longer suffers from a dangerous mental disorder, Supreme Court relied upon an opinion that did not account for diagnoses that the court found respondent to have. Thus, the court never considered the impact that the diagnoses have on respondent’s behavior and present dangerousness.  Matter of James Q., 2021 NY Slip Op 01545, Third Dept 3-18-21

 

You might also like
Contract Merged with the Deed and Any Rights Afforded Purchaser by the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act Were Extinguished Upon Transfer of Title
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH COUNTY COURT ISSUED, ENTERED AND FILED A DECISION ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE INDICATING THE DECISION WAS A JUDGMENT OR AN ORDER; IN ADDITION, THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT DID NOT INCLUDE “SO ORDERED” LANGUAGE; THEREFORE THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE ORDER BEFORE THE COURT AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).
SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.
RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVING CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD 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

ON A COLD DAY DEFENDANTS HOSED DOWN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND... THE SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT...