Groves v. State, 124 A.D.3d 1213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Groves v. State, 124 A.D.3d 1213 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Brandon D. v. State of New York (nyappdiv, 2021-06-11)
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Brandon D. v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Although petitioner's diagnoses, alone, are insufficient to support a finding of mental abnormality that would predispose a person to commit sex offenses ( see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. , 24 NY3d 174, 190 [2014]; Matter of Groves v State of New York , 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [4th Dept 2015]), both petitioner's expert and respondent's expert also opined that petitioner exhibited psychopathic traits, and respondent's expert opined that petitioner exhibited at least five behavioral traits of sexual sadism.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF NEW YORK v. D., WILLIAM
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Respondent’s confinement is subject to annual review pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (b) (see generally Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]), and he may petition for discharge or release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (f).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gooding v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although it is well established that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is, by itself, “insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a mental abnormality’ finding” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]), here, the court’s determination that petitioner suffered from a mental abnormality was not based solely on a diagnosis of ASPD.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gooding v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although it is well established that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is, by itself, “insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a mental abnormality’ finding” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]), here, the court’s determination that petitioner suffered from a mental abnormality was not based solely on a diagnosis of ASPD.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vega v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although it is well established that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is, by itself, “insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a ‘mental abnormality’ finding” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]), here, both respondents’ expert and petitioner’s expert agreed that petitioner had a mental abnormality — specifically, that petitioner had diagnoses of ASPD, alcohol and cocaine dependency, and psychopathic traits along with a history of sexual preoccupation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vega v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although it is well established that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is, by itself, “insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a ‘mental abnormality’ finding” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]), here, both respondents’ expert and petitioner’s expert agreed that petitioner had a mental abnormality — specifically, that petitioner had diagnoses of ASPD, alcohol and cocaine dependency, and psychopathic traits along with a history of sexual preoccupation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) WRIGHT, MYRON v. STATE OF NEW YORK
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Those instances can hardly support the conclusion “that petitioner currently suffers from a ‘mental abnormality’ ” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [emphasis added]). -6- 965.1 CA 15-00538 As for the first factor, there is no dispute that petitioner has a lengthy criminal history of sex offenses dating back to the 1970’s.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Those instances can hardly support the conclusion “that petitioner currently suffers from a ‘mental abnormality’ ” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015] [emphasis added]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wright v. State
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Those instances can hardly support the conclusion “that petitioner currently suffers from a ‘mental abnormality’ ” (Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015] [emphasis added]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of State of New York v. Odell A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Since ASPD was the sole diagnosis underlying the jury’s finding that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), the finding was not supported by legally sufficient evidence, and the petition must be dismissed (see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d at 191 ; Matter of Groves v State of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214 [2015]; Matter of State of New York v I.M., 123 AD3d 464 [2014]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Joseph S. v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
We add only that the subsequent orders do not render the remaining issue on appeal moot ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [b]; see generally Matter of Groves v State of New York , 124 AD3d 1213, 1213 [4th Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Clarence H. v. State of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Contrary to petitioner's further contention, respondent established by clear and convincing evidence ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [h]; see generally Matter of Groves v State of New York , 124 AD3d 1213 , 1214 [4th Dept 2015]) that petitioner has "serious difficulty in controlling" his sexual conduct (§ 10.03 [i]; see Matter of Edward T. v State of New York , 185 AD3d 1423, 1425 [4th Dept 2020]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Kenneth Groves, Consecutive No. 166237, for Discharge from Central New York Psychiatric Center Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09
v.
State of New York
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 2, 2015.
124 A.D.3d 1213
Carni, Centra, Valentino, Whalen.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Louis R Gigliotti, A.J.), entered March 28, 2014. The order determined that petitioner is currently not a sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and directed the discharge of petitioner from the custody of the Office of Mental Health.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondents appeal from an order, entered after an annual review hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d), that determined that petitioner does not currently suffer from a mental abnormality under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) and directed his unconditional discharge from the custody of the Office of Mental Health (see § 10.09 [h]). We affirm.

We agree with petitioner that on this record Supreme Court properly determined that respondents failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner currently suffers from a “mental abnormality” (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [h]). Moreover, although both experts diagnosed petitioner with antisocial personality disorder, that diagnosis is insufficient, as a matter of law, to support a “mental abnormality” finding (see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d 174, 190 [2014]). We reject respondents’ contention that the jury determination that petitioner suffered from a “mental abnormality” in 2008 precludes any subsequent review of that issue (see § 10.07 [d]; see generally People ex rel. Leonard HH. v Nixon, 148 AD2d 75, 79 [1989]). The annual review proceeding conducted here specifically requires that every person civilly committed under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 “shall have an examination for evaluation of his or her mental condition made at least once every year” (§ 10.09 [b]). Indeed, as part of each annual review, a psychiatric examiner is required to report to the Commissioner of Mental Health whether such person “is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (id. [emphasis added]).

Present — Centra, J.R, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.