N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Mental Hygiene / TITLE Mental Health Act / ARTICLE Sex Offenders Requiring Civil Commitment or Supervision
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 (2026)

Legislative findings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 10.01 Legislative findings. The legislature finds as follows:
  (a) That recidivistic sex offenders pose a danger to society that
should be addressed through comprehensive programs of treatment and
management.  Civil and criminal processes have distinct but overlapping
goals, and both should be part of an integrated approach that is based
on evolving scientific understanding, flexible enough to respond to
current needs of individual offenders, and sufficient to provide
meaningful treatment and to protect the public.
  (b) That some sex offenders have mental abnormalities that predispose
them to engage in repeated sex offenses. These offenders may require
long-term specialized treatment modalities to address their risk to
reoffend. They should receive such treatment while they are incarcerated
as a result of the criminal process, and should continue to receive
treatment when that incarceration comes to an end. In extreme cases,
confinement of the most dangerous offenders will need to be extended by
civil process in order to provide them such treatment and to protect the
public from their recidivistic conduct.
  (c) That for other sex offenders, it can be effective and appropriate
to provide treatment in a regimen of strict and intensive outpatient
supervision. Accordingly, civil commitment should be only one element in
a range of responses to the need for treatment of sex offenders. The
goal of a comprehensive system should be to protect the public, reduce
recidivism, and ensure offenders have access to proper treatment.
  (d) That some of the goals of civil commitment - protection of
society, supervision of offenders, and management of their behavior -
are appropriate goals of the criminal process as well. For some
recidivistic sex offenders, appropriate criminal sentences, including
long-term post-release supervision, may be the most appropriate way to
achieve those goals.
  (e) That the system for responding to recidivistic sex offenders with
civil measures must be designed for treatment and protection. It should
be based on the most accurate scientific understanding available,
including the use of current, validated risk assessment instruments.
Ideally, effective risk assessment should begin to occur prior to
sentencing in the criminal process, and it should guide the process of
civil commitment.
  (f) That the system should offer meaningful forms of treatment to sex
offenders in all criminal and civil phases, including during
incarceration, civil commitment, and outpatient supervision.
  (g) That sex offenders in need of civil commitment are a different
population from traditional mental health patients, who have different
treatment needs and particular vulnerabilities. Accordingly, civil
commitment of sex offenders should be implemented in ways that do not
endanger, stigmatize, or divert needed treatment resources away from
such traditional mental health patients.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: The Matter of the State of New York v. Dennis K. , The Matter of the State of New York v. Anthony N., The Matter of the State of New York v. Richard TT., 59 N.E.3d 500 (N.Y. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Matter of the State of New York v. Dennis K. , The Matter of the State of New York v. Anthony N., The Matter of the State of New York v. Richard TT., 59 N.E.3d 500 (N.Y. 2016). · cites it 8× “Mental Hygiene Law article 10 is designed to reduce the risks posed by, and to address the treatment needs of, sex offenders who suffer from mental abnormalities that predispose them to commit repeated sex crimes (Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.01 [b], 10.03 [i]).”
State of New York v. Rashid, 942 N.E.2d 225 (N.Y. 2010). · cites it 6× “SOMTA and article 10 are designed to reduce the risks posed by and to address the treatment needs of those sex offenders who suffer from mental abnormalities that predispose them to commit repeated sex crimes ( see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.01, 10.03 [i]). To these ends, whenever…”
State v. Enrique T., 93 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2012). · cites it 4× “” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 [b].) The Legislature’s concern was that “recidivistic sex offenders pose a danger to society that should be addressed through comprehensive programs of treatment and management.”
State v. Floyd Y., 2 N.E.3d 204 (N.Y. 2013). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, SOMTA purports to provide treatment to confined sex offenders (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.10). As the legislature found, “some sex offenders .”
State v. Daniel OO., 88 A.D.3d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011). · cites it 5× “1 *215 Mental Hygiene Law article 10 was enacted in 2007 in recognition of the fact “[t]hat recidivistic sex offenders pose a danger to society that should be addressed through comprehensive programs of treatment and management” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 [a]). Article 10 is…”
State v. Maurice G., 32 Misc. 3d 380 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011). · cites it 6× “(Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 [a].) The act was signed into law by then-Governor Eliot Spitzer on March 14, 2007, and became effective April 13, 2007.”
Matter of Williams v. Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 136 A.D.3d 147 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016). · cites it 2× “SORA requires all sex offenders to register with the State and provides for notification to the community (Correction Law § 168 et seq ). The Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA), which only applies after the completion of a criminal sentence, provides for civil…”
State v. Donald DD., 21 N.E.3d 239 (N.Y. 2014). “SOMTA was the result of a legislative determination that “[cjivil and criminal processes have distinct but overlapping goals, and both should be part of an integrated approach that is based on evolving scientific understanding, flexible enough to respond to current needs of…”
People v. Harnett, 945 N.E.2d 439 (N.Y. 2011). “No mention was made of SOMTA (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). Defendant did not move, either before or after sentence, to withdraw his plea.”
In the Matter of State of New York v. Michael M., 26 N.E.3d 769 (N.Y. 2014). “Moreover, Mental Hygiene Law article 10, as written, is already 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…”
State v. Campany, 77 A.D.3d 92 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2010). “A jury trial under article 10 does have some criminal characteristics—for example, the jury is to consist of 12 jurors (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [a]-[b]; CPL 270.”
State v. Mark S., 87 A.D.3d 73 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2011). “at 127; see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]), a right not applicable in these Mental Hygiene Law article 10 civil proceedings (see Matter of State of New York v Wilkes, 77 AD3d at 1451-1452; see also Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01; Matter of State of New York v Campany, 77…”
Show all 99 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.