12 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Here, petitioner indicated on the annual written notice of the right to petition the court for discharge, which included a waiver option, that he did not wish to waive his right to petition for discharge (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [a]; Matter of Davis v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2013]). 2015Here, petitioner indicated on the annual written notice of the right to petition the court for discharge, which included a waiver option, that he did not wish to waive his right to petition for discharge (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [a]; Matter of Davis v State of New York, 106 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2013]). | 2 | 3 |
Martinek v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Joseph II. v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 15 NY3d 126, 135 [2010]; Matter of Martinek v State of New York, 108 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2013]). 2013Joseph II. v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 15 NY3d 126, 135 [2010]; Matter of Martinek v State of New York, 108 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2013]). | 2 | 2 |
People Ex Rel. Joseph II v. Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facilitygreen2 sentences2013Joseph II. v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 15 NY3d 126, 135 [2010]; Matter of Martinek v State of New York, 108 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2013]). 2013Joseph II. v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, 15 NY3d 126, 135 [2010]; Matter of Martinek v State of New York, 108 AD3d 1048, 1049 [2013]). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of State of New York v. Richard F.green1 sentence2025I write separately to emphasize my view that a court's role in an annual review hearing is to determine whether the State has met its burden of proof, and not—contrary to petitioner's contention—to exercise independent psychological judgment and disregard the unanimous [*2]opinions of the psychiatric experts ( see generally Matter of Doy S. v State of New York , 196 AD3d 1165 , 1168 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of State of New York v Richard F. , 180 AD3d 1339, 1340 [4th Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Nushawn W. v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2024"A person may be found to be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement if that person 'suffer[s] 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' " ( Matter of Ezra B. v State of New York , 221 AD3d 1597 , 1598 [4th Dept 2023], quoting § 10.03 [e]; see Matter of Nushawn W. v State of New York , 215 AD3d 1227, 1228 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 901 [2023]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of State of New York v. Keith F.green1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Armstronggreen1 sentence2015Thus, in Matter of Brooks v State of New York ( 120 AD3d 1577 , 1578 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court considered the issue of hearsay at the annual review hearing held by the trial court to determine whether the respondent’s confinement should be continued and found that “we conclude that Supreme Court is presumed to have properly given any hearsay statements limited legal signifi canee in making its determination, and that any evidentiary error is harmless.” In Matter of State of New York v Armstrong ( 119 AD3d 1431, 1432 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court rejected Floyd Y. challenges to basis evidence r | 1 | 1 |
Morgia v. Horninggreen1 sentence2015Thus, in Matter of Brooks v State of New York ( 120 AD3d 1577 , 1578 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court considered the issue of hearsay at the annual review hearing held by the trial court to determine whether the respondent’s confinement should be continued and found that “we conclude that Supreme Court is presumed to have properly given any hearsay statements limited legal signifi canee in making its determination, and that any evidentiary error is harmless.” In Matter of State of New York v Armstrong ( 119 AD3d 1431, 1432 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court rejected Floyd Y. challenges to basis evidence r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Donald DD.
green
2 sentences2016Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. ( 24 NY3d 174 [2014]), petitioner’s counsel moved to vacate the above order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), contending that the evidence submitted during the annual review hearing is not legally sufficient to support a finding that petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality. 2016Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. ( 24 NY3d 174 [2014]), petitioner’s counsel moved to vacate the above order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), contending that the evidence submitted during the annual review hearing is not legally sufficient to support a finding that petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
People ex rel. Crawford v. Warden of Vernon C. Bain Ctr.
green
1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Robert S. v. Linda S.
neutral
1 sentence2021We reject petitioner's contention that his due process rights were violated by a delay in holding a hearing in this case ( see Matter of Wayne J. v State of New York , 184 AD3d 1133 , 1134 [4th Dept 2020]; Matter of State of New York v Kerry K. , 157 AD3d 172 , 181-182 [2d Dept 2017]; Matter of State of New York v Keith F. , 149 AD3d 671, 672-673 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 917 [2017], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1032 [2017]). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Discharge of Brooks v. State
green
1 sentence2015Thus, in Matter of Brooks v State of New York ( 120 AD3d 1577 , 1578 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court considered the issue of hearsay at the annual review hearing held by the trial court to determine whether the respondent’s confinement should be continued and found that “we conclude that Supreme Court is presumed to have properly given any hearsay statements limited legal signifi canee in making its determination, and that any evidentiary error is harmless.” In Matter of State of New York v Armstrong ( 119 AD3d 1431, 1432 [4th Dept 2014]), the Court rejected Floyd Y. challenges to basis evidence r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.