Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of William J. v. State of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2024We agree with our sister department that "in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on the State to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender's ability to control his sexual behavior" ( George N., 160 AD3d at 31, citing Matter of State of New York v William J., 151 AD3d 1890, 1891-1892 [4th Dept 2017]). 2020Notably, Supreme Court's analysis was not limited to the facts underlying the SIST violation; rather, the court "was entitled to rely on all the relevant facts and circumstances tending to establish that respondent was a dangerous sex offender" ( Matter of State of New York v William J. , 151 AD3d 1890, 1891 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). | 2 | 3 |
Matter of State of New York v. Steven A.green2 sentences2022As forrespondent's argument that his SIST violations were nonsexual in natureand therefore should not serve as a basis to confine him, it is true that, "in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on [petitioner] to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender's ability to control his [or her] sexual behavior" ( Matter of State of New York v George N. , 160 AD3d 28 , 31 [2018]; see Matter of State of New York v Steven A. , 193 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 911 [2021]). 2022As forrespondent's argument that his SIST violations were nonsexual in natureand therefore should not serve as a basis to confine him, it is true that, "in the absence of evidence of sexually inappropriate conduct while on SIST, it becomes incumbent on [petitioner] to demonstrate a persuasive link between a nonsexual SIST violation and the offender's ability to control his [or her] sexual behavior" ( Matter of State of New York v George N. , 160 AD3d 28 , 31 [2018]; see Matter of State of New York v Steven A. , 193 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 911 [2021]). | 2 | 2 |
ANDRE, WILLIAM v. SANFILIPO, D.C., FRED L.green1 sentence2024"A mere tendency to engage in risky or socially undesirable conduct — even if that conduct provides an opportunity for, or increases the likelihood of, sexual offending — is quintessentially insufficient to establish 'inability' under the Michael M. formulation" ( George N., 160 AD3d at 31; see Matter of State of New York v Husted, 145 AD3d 1637, 1638 [4th Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Melluzzcgreen1 sentence2011Having refused to submit to a new psychological evaluation, the appellant may not now rely on the absence of a more current psychiatric evaluation to support his contention that the petitioner failed to prove that he suffered from a “mental abnormality” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]; cf. People v Melluzzo, 167 AD2d 323, 324 [1990] [it was the defendant’s own obstructive behavior in refusing to appear for the scheduled psychiatric evaluation which deprived the sentencing court of the presentence psychiatric report]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Finch
green
2 sentences2014Contrary to respondent’s contention, the recent decision from the Court of Appeals in People v Finch ( 23 NY3d 408 [2014]) does not support his position that, because he objected to hearsay presented at the subsequent SIST violation hearing, he preserved his contention regarding hearsay presented at the previous jury trial. 2014Contrary to respondent’s contention, the recent decision from the Court of Appeals in People v Finch ( 23 NY3d 408 [2014]) does not support his position that, because he objected to hearsay presented at the subsequent SIST violation hearing, he preserved his contention regarding hearsay presented at the previous jury trial. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Floyd Y.
green
2 sentences2016As noted above, respondent challenged the reliability of the testimony concerning this offense as the basis of the SIST violation under Floyd Y. (see Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95 [2013]). . 2016As noted above, respondent challenged the reliability of the testimony concerning this offense as the basis of the SIST violation under Floyd Y. (see Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95 [2013]). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Swartz
green
1 sentence2011(Id.) When petitioner in that case sought a court order directing respondent to undergo a new psychiatric evaluation immediately and the new article 10 hearing on the level of civil management delayed until respondent was nearing release from incarceration, the court held that both the evaluation and the hearing could not be held until respondent was released from incarceration. {Id. at 193-194.) The court also ordered that the respondent be detained after his period of incarceration terminated so that he could be evaluated and that hearing could be held to determine whether the respondent sho | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.