You are here: / / DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON...

DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING.

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant, who had been retained after he had been indicted for assault and entered a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, should not have been released without a hearing:

​

Although originally determined to suffer from a “dangerous mental disorder,” defendant progressed in treatment to the point where he was transferred to a nonsecure psychiatric facility. Petitioner nevertheless contends that defendant remains “[m]entally ill” and in need of “care and treatment as a patient, in the in-patient services of a psychiatric center under the jurisdiction of the state office of mental health” (CPL 330.20 [1] [d]). As a result, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a “[s]ubsequent retention order” (CPL 330.20 [1] [i]). In support of the application, petitioner submitted, inter alia, an appropriate affidavit from a psychiatric examiner in accordance with CPL 330.20 (20). Defendant demanded a hearing pursuant to CPL 330.20 (9), but he did not submit any affidavits in opposition to the application. * * *

​

Before issuing a release order, the court must conduct a hearing to “determine the defendant’s present mental condition” (CPL 330.20 [12]). Here, the undisputed submissions before the court in support of petitioner’s application for a subsequent retention order demonstrated that defendant remained “mentally ill” as defined in CPL 330.20 (1) (d) and in need of in-patient treatment. Nonetheless, without taking any testimony or receiving any evidence, the court issued a release order. That, itself, was error. Moreover, before issuing a release order, the court must “find[] that the defendant does not have a dangerous mental disorder and is not mentally ill” (CPL 330.20 [12]; … ). Here, we agree with petitioner that the court further erred in failing to make any finding on that issue. Guttmacher v S.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 04968, 4th Dept 6-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)/MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED AFTER A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY RELEASED BY COUNTY COURT WITHOUT A HEARING)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER COUNSELING AS A PREREQUISITE FOR FATHER’S VISITATION.
SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, THEREFORE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DID NOT TESTIFY WERE ADMISSIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERT TESTIMONY PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF LATE NOTICE, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED BECAUSE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).
A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CLAIMED IN HIS DEPOSITION HE COULDN’T STOP AT THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE FLOOR MAT HAD ROLLED UP UNDER THE BRAKE PEDAL; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED THE DEPOSITION AS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEPOSITION WAS HEARSAY AND THEREFORE COULD NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE USUAL HEARSAY RULES DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEPOSITION WAS SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
“GOOD CAUSE” FOR FILING A LATE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION MUST BE DEMONSTRATED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS, NOT IN THE REPLY PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT INDICATE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS WERE ENCOMPASSED BY COUNTS 2 AND 3; THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR THOSE COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (FOURTH 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

FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL. FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH A STATEMENT OF CONVICTION REQUIRED VACATION...