You are here: / Mental Hygiene Law
,

Rules of Evidence Properly Relaxed to Allow Hearsay In Proceeding to Modify Guardian’s Power to Control the Social Environment of the Incapacitated Person

In affirming the denial of a petition to modify the court-appointed guardian’s power to control the social environment of Mary WW, the incapacitated person (to compel the guardian to allow petitioner to visit Mary WW), the Third Department agreed with Supreme Court that hearsay was admissible in the proceeding:

…. [P]etitioner contends that, in denying her motion, Supreme Court improperly relied upon the hearsay statements of witnesses who had contact with Mary WW. We disagree. Although the rules of evidence are generally applicable to proceedings brought under Mental Hygiene Law article 81, Mental Hygiene Law § 81.12 (b) provides that the court may waive such rules “for good cause shown.” Here, we note that Mary WW. initially consented to the guardianship, it was recommended by the court evaluator and none of Mary WW.’s children, except for petitioner, objected. Moreover, it is undisputed that Mary WW. now suffers from severe dementia and was unable to attend the modification hearing, which occurred nearly four years after the guardianship was established. In view of this, it was necessary for other witnesses to testify concerning her interactions with petitioner. Significantly, petitioner was not prejudiced, as she was present at the hearing and denied the allegations. Under these circumstances, we find that Supreme Court had good cause for relaxing the rules of evidence and considering the hearsay statements of witnesses who had contact with Mary WW. Matter of Mary WW…, 2015 NY Slip Op 01704, 3rd Dept 2-26-15

 

, ,

Under the Criteria Recently Announced by the Court of Appeals, the Proof Was Not Sufficient to Justify Placing the Respondent Under Strict and Intensive Supervision in the Community

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, applied the criteria recently announced by the Court of Appeals and determined the state had not presented sufficient proof to justify placing the respondent, a sex offender who had served 33 years in prison, under strict and intensive supervision (SIST) in the community.  The opinion is very detailed and defies summary.  Some of the main points follow:

The State of New York brought this Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) article 10 proceeding seeking civil commitment of respondent as a dangerous sex offender. This proceeding, however, preceded the recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (24 NY3d 174 [2014]). In Donald DD., the Court of Appeals limited the evidence that can be used to civilly commit a convicted sex offender, and clarified that a sex offender cannot be subject to civil commitment solely because the individual is diagnosed as suffering from an abnormality that predisposes him to commit sexual offenses. In so doing, the Court of Appeals clarifies the line between civil commitment and penal commitment. In this case, we heed this clarification by dismissing this MHL article 10 proceeding on the ground that the State has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has or will have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. * * *

…[T]he jury found that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality qualifying him for civil management under MHL article 10. Following a dispositional hearing where the State experts and respondent testified, Supreme Court found that respondent is not a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement, and ordered instead that he submit to strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) in the community. * * *

…[T]he statute requires that all offenders subject to civil management, including SIST, must be found to have a mental abnormality as a threshold qualification. MHL § 10.03(i) defines a mental abnormality as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.”

Article 10 authorizes civil confinement only of those sex offenders whose “mental abnormality” involves such a strong disposition to commit sexual misconduct and an inability to control behavior that the person is dangerous to society (MHL §§ 10.03[e], 10.07[f]). MHL article 10, as written, is also designed to provide courts with a mechanism for deciding whether the mental condition of a sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality is so extreme that the more restrictive alternative of confinement is warranted or whether, on the other hand, the least restrictive option, namely SIST, is permitted (see MHL § 10.07[f]).

…[I]n Donald DD. …, the Court of Appeals clarified that the State must prove, separate from a finding of mental abnormality required for civil commitment, that the defendant has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, the State must demonstrate that as a result of the “serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder,” a person also would have serious difficulty controlling his behavior if released (24 NY3d at 187, 189).  Matter of State of New York v Frank P, 2015 NY Slip Op 01551, 1st Dept 2-19-15

 

munity

, ,

Motion for a Change of Venue Can Be Entertained in “Dangerous Sex Offender” Trials and Hearings Under the Mental Hygiene Law/Non-Final Order Which Necessarily Affects the Final Order Is Appealable

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that “dangerous sex offender” trials and hearings under the Mental Hygiene Law are subject to the change of venue procedures under the CPLR.  Here, after the motion for a change of venue was denied, the petitioner refused to attend the hearing.  The Court of Appeals noted that the denial of the motion to change venue, although a non-final order, was appealable because it necessarily affected the final order:

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e) provides that “[a]t any hearing or trial pursuant to the provisions of this article, the court may change the venue of the trial to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent.”  * * * The construction of the provision is somewhat ambiguous, in that, if the legislature intended to restrict a change of venue to article 10 trials, the reference to “any hearing or trial” would appear to be superfluous. We see no need to read a restriction into the statute limiting annual review hearings solely to the few counties where secure treatment facilities are located.

However, petitioner failed to establish good cause for the change of venue. As noted above, the statute provides that good cause “may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [e]). The affidavit submitted in support of the motion did urge, generally, that it would be inconvenient and burdensome for unnamed family members and other potential witnesses to travel to Oneida County, but failed to identify a single witness that would testify on petitioner’s behalf. Nor did the affidavit set forth the subject of any proposed testimony — let alone identify any information that would be potentially relevant to the issue of whether petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement. Therefore, the motion for a change of venue was properly denied. Matter of Tyrone D v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 01301, CtApp 2-13-15

 

Supreme Court Should Have Considered the Alleged Incapacitated Person’s (AIP’s) Available Resources Before Finding the AIP Incapacitated and In Need of a Guardian

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court’s determination the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) was incapacitated and needed a guardian.  Supreme Court did not consider the sufficiency of the AIP’s available resources:

We agree with the AIP that Supreme Court erred in making that determination without considering “the sufficiency and reliability of available resources’ (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02 [a] [2]) to satisfy the AIP’s personal needs and property management without the need for a guardian” … . It is undisputed that the AIP had “available resources,” i.e., a power of attorney and healthcare proxy (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.03 [e]), and the court should therefore have inquired whether those advance directives were adequate to protect the AIP’s personal and property interests before determining that she is incapacitated and in need of a guardian … . Matter of Mitchell, 2015 NY Slip Op 00165, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

,

“Detained Sex Offender,” Under Article 10, Applies Equally to Lawfully and Unlawfully Detained Sex Offenders

In the course of affirming the finding that appellant was a dangerous sex offender who must be civilly confined, the Second Department noted that Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, which applies to “detained sex offenders,” applies equally to lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders.  The court went on to briefly describe the relevant analytical criteria and proof burden:

The appellant's contention that this proceeding was “jurisdictionally flawed” because he did not meet the definition of a detained sex offender is without merit. The appellant was incarcerated upon his conviction of attempted sodomy in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 110.00 and former Penal Law § 130.50 at the time that this proceeding was commenced (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[g][1]). The Court of Appeals has made it clear that the statutory language of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 does not distinguish between lawfully and unlawfully detained sex offenders … . * * *

A “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[e]). The State must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]). Matter of State of New York v Abdul A, 2014 NY Slip OP 09006, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the appointment of a guardian for Mae R, who was 91, was necessary. The Second Department further found that the petitioner was not the appropriate choice for a guardian.  [In addition, the court noted that, in absence of bad faith, it was an abuse of discretion for Supreme Court to order petitioner to pay the fees for the court evaluator and appointed attorney.]  The court explained the relevant law and the facts:

Under Mental Hygiene Law article 81, a court may appoint a guardian for a person or a person's property upon determining, by clear and convincing evidence, that the requirements of article 81 have been met (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 81.02[a][2], 81.12[a]…). Before a court may appoint a guardian, it must determine (1) that a guardian is “necessary to provide for the personal needs of that person, including food, clothing, shelter, health care, or safety and/or to manage the property and financial affairs of that person”; and (2) that “the person agrees to the appointment, or that the person is incapacitated” within the meaning of the statute (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][1], [2]…). The statute specifies the relevant considerations and issues in the determination of the need for a guardian, and expressly requires that the court consider the report of the court evaluator (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a]) and the “sufficiency and reliability of available resources” that may satisfy the needs of the proposed ward without requiring the appointment of a guardian (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[a][2]…). Even where the court finds that appointment of a guardian is necessary, it is not required to appoint the person proposed by the petitioner … .

Here, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, which rejected the recommendation of the court evaluator, the petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mae R. is an incapacitated person as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02(b). The evidence at the hearing established that Mae R., a 91-year-old woman who presently resides by herself in her two-family home in Queens, is likely to suffer harm because she is unable to provide for her personal needs and manage her property, and does not adequately understand and appreciate the nature and consequences of her limited abilities (see Mental Hygiene Law § 81.02[b][1], [2]…).

The evidence established, among other things, that, until recently, Mae R. managed her person and property with the daily assistance of a tenant who previously resided with her, and Mae R.'s grandniece, both of whom testified at the hearing and were interviewed by the court evaluator. The evidence further established that, subsequently, Mae R. executed a health care proxy and power of attorney in favor of a neighbor, and a last will and testament bequeathing her entire estate to this neighbor, who procured the attorney who drafted the alleged directives and testamentary instrument. At an interview with the court-appointed evaluator, however, Mae R. did not recall issuing the directives and testamentary instrument. Indeed, she told the court-appointed evaluator that she wished to leave her estate to family members. Further, witnesses at the hearing had heard Mae R. say that the same neighbor “makes me say things I don't mean and then I forget.” Matter of Loftman …, 2014 NY Slip Op 08998, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Sex Offender Who Has Difficulty Controlling Sexual Urges, As Opposed to a Sex Offender Who Is Unable to Control Sexual Urges, Should Be Placed Under Strict and Intensive Supervision, Not Confined

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that respondent sex offender should not be confined in a mental health facility after serving his prison sentence, but rather should be placed under “strict and intensive supervision.”  After finding the “least restrictive alternative doctrine” does not apply to Article 10 (Mental Hygiene Law) proceedings, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence did not support the conclusion respondent was a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.”  The evidence demonstrated respondent had, with difficultly, been able to control his sexual urges, but did not demonstrate that he was unable to control them (the requirement for confinement):

The Mental Hygiene Law defines “mental abnormality” as “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (MHL § 10.03 [i] [emphasis added]). By contrast, a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” is defined in the Mental Hygiene Law as “a person who is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (MHL § 10.03 [e] [emphasis added]). The statute — which goes on to describe a “sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision” as a “detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality but is not a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (MHL § 10.03 [r]) — clearly envisages a distinction between sex offenders who have difficulty controlling their sexual conduct and those who are unable to control it. The former are to be supervised and treated as “outpatients” and only the latter may be confined. Matter of State of New York v Michael M, 2014 NY Slip Op 08789, CtApp 12-17-14

 

, , ,

Civil Commitment of Two Sex Offenders Reversed—In One Case the Proof the Offender Had “Serious Difficulty In Controlling” His Sexual Conduct Within the Meaning of Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law Was Legally Insufficient—In the Other Case, Proof the Offender Suffered from Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPC) Alone Did Not Meet the Definition of “Mental Abnormality” in Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a partial dissent, reversed the civil commitment of two sex offenders, finding the proof required by Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law lacking. In the case of Kenneth T, the state claimed Kenneth suffered from “paraphilia not otherwise specified” (paraphilia NOS) and “antisocial personality disorder” (ASPD).  In the case of Donald DD, the state claimed Donald suffered from ASPD alone.  The Court of Appeals, with respect to Kenneth T, seriously questioned, but did not decide, whether the proof of paraphilia NOS and ASPD sufficiently demonstrated a “mental abnormality” under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.  The court suggested that a Frye hearing to test the scientific soundness of the opinion evidence in this regard would be a good idea. Sidestepping that issue on stare decisis grounds, the court reversed Kenneth's civil commitment because the proof Kenneth had “serious difficulty in controlling” his sexual conduct within the meaning of section 10.03 (i) was not clear and convincing.  With respect to Donald DD, the court unambiguously ruled that proof of ASPD alone is never sufficient proof of a mental abnormality within the meaning of section 10.03 (i):

We do not decide on this occasion from what sources sufficient evidence of a serious difficulty controlling sex-offending conduct may arise, but they cannot consist of such meager material as that a sex offender did not make efforts to avoid arrest and reincarceration. A detailed psychological portrait of a sex offender would doubtless allow an expert to determine the level of control the offender has over his sexual conduct. However, … testimony that Kenneth T. lacked “internal controls such as a conscience that might curb his impulses” is not a basis from which serious difficulty in controlling sexual conduct may be rationally inferred. * * *

Donald DD.'s appeal presents us with an opportunity to decide a question left open in Matter of State of New York v John S. (23 NY3d 326 [2014]), namely whether a civil commitment under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 may be based solely on a diagnosis of ASPD, together with evidence of sexual crimes … . We hold that it cannot. Matter of State of New York v Donald DD, 2014 NY Slip Op 07295, CtApp 10-28-14

 

,

Marriage of an Incapacitated Person Properly Annulled

The Second Department determined there was sufficient evidence to justify the annulment of the marriage of an incapacitated person (Aldo D.). for whom a temporary guardian had been appointed, to the appellant:

…[C]lear and convincing evidence was presented at the hearing that Aldo D. was incapacitated … . Among other things, testimony was adduced that Aldo D. suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and the temporary guardian testified that he observed symptoms of dementia in Aldo D. For example, the temporary guardian related that Aldo D. did not seem to understand that he was being evicted from his apartment, and that he had married without intending to do so. The temporary guardian further testified that Aldo D. was very limited in his ability to walk and dress himself, and he could not cook for himself. He did not recognize his need for help. When questioned by the court, Aldo D. repeatedly denied marrying the appellant, said that he did not remember marrying the appellant, and did not want to be married to her. The appellant acknowledged during her testimony that they had, “to a degree,” two marriage ceremonies, because, at the time of the first ceremony, Aldo D. “wasn’t feeling well.” The evidence before the Supreme Court was legally sufficient to establish that Aldo D. was incapacitated. Because there was legally sufficient evidence presented to the Supreme Court establishing that Aldo D. was incapacitated, it was proper to annul the marriage between him and the appellant pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 81.29(d) … . Matter of Dandridge, 2014 NY Slip Op 06311, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

, ,

Non-Sex-Offense Committed While On Supervised Released for a Sex Offense Was a “Related Offense” Within the Meaning of Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hall, determined that a sex offender who had been released and was serving a period of post-release supervision at the time he was arrested and re-incarcerated on a credit-card charge, was incarcerated on a “related offense” within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law.  Therefore, the state could properly proceed with civil management proceedings pursuant article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.  The respondent argued, and Supreme Court had held, that the credit card offense was not related to his sex offense and therefore the state could not start a civil management proceeding based upon his current incarceration:

The respondent’s 2011 conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree clearly does not fall within the first two categories of a “related offense,” i.e., offenses which are prosecuted as part of the same criminal action or proceeding as the sex offense, and offenses which are part of the same criminal transaction as the sex offense (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[l]). However, the crime of criminal possession of stolen property does fall within the third category, which covers offenses “which are the bases of the orders of commitment received by [DOCCS] in connection with an inmate’s current term of incarceration” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(l)). This category covers “inmates” serving their “current term[s] of incarceration” (…  see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[l]). The Court of Appeals has recognized that this third category of “[r]elated offenses” is “broadly worded, reflecting the legislature’s apparent decision to give the State more leeway to pursue civil commitment against soon-to-be-released [DOCCS] inmates than parolees” (Matter of State of New York v Rashid, 16 NY3d at 14 n 12).

When the State initiated this civil management proceeding, the respondent was in the custody of DOCCS, and still subject to the sex offense order of commitment, inasmuch as he had not yet completed the postrelease supervision portion of that sentence. In other words, he was incarcerated on a “related offense,” because he was convicted of that offense while still serving his sentence for the underlying sex offense. Matter of State of New York v Claude McC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05885, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

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