New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (2026)
Trial
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 10.07 Trial. (a) Within sixty days after the court determines, pursuant to subdivision (k) of section 10.06 of this article, that there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management, the court shall conduct a jury trial to determine whether the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality. The trial shall be held before the same court that conducted the probable cause hearing unless either the attorney general or counsel for the respondent has moved for a change of venue and the motion has been granted by the court. (b) The provisions of article forty-one of the civil practice law and rules shall apply to the formation and conduct of jury trial under this section, except that the provisions of the following sections of the criminal procedure law shall govern to the extent that the provisions of article forty-one of the civil practice law and rules are inconsistent therewith: sections 270.05, 270.10, 270.15, 270.20, subdivision one of section 270.25, and subdivision one of section 270.35 (except for the provisions thereof requiring consent for the replacement of a discharged juror with an alternate). Each side shall have ten peremptory challenges for the regular jurors and two for each alternate juror to be selected. The right to a trial by jury may be waived by the respondent, and upon such waiver, the court shall conduct a trial in accordance with article forty-two of the civil practice law and rules, excluding provisions for decision-making by referees. (c) The provisions of subdivision (g) of section 10.08 of this article and article forty-five of the civil practice law and rules shall be applicable to trials conducted pursuant to this section. The jury may hear evidence of the degree to which the respondent cooperated with the psychiatric examination. If the court finds that the respondent refused to submit to a psychiatric examination pursuant to this article, upon request it shall so instruct the jury. The respondent's commission of a sex offense shall be deemed established and shall not be relitigated at the trial, whenever it is shown that: (i) the respondent stands convicted of such offense; or (ii) the respondent previously has been found not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect for the commission of such offense or for an act or acts constituting such offense. Whenever the petition alleges the respondent's commission of a designated felony prior to the effective date of this article, the issue of whether such offense was sexually motivated shall be determined by the jury. (d) The jury, or the court if a jury trial is waived, shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality. The burden of proof shall be on the attorney general. A determination, if made by the jury, must be by unanimous verdict. In charging the jury, the court's instructions shall include the admonishment that the jury may not find solely on the basis of the respondent's commission of a sex offense that the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality. In the case of a respondent committed pursuant to article seven hundred thirty of the criminal procedure law for a sex offense, the attorney general shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent did engage in the conduct constituting such offense. (e) If the jury unanimously, or the court if a jury trial is waived, determines that the attorney general has not sustained his or her burden of establishing that the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, the court shall dismiss the petition and the respondent shall be released if and as warranted by other provisions of law. If the jury is unable to render a unanimous verdict, the court shall continue any commitment order previously issued and schedule a second trial to be held within sixty days in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section. If the jury in such second trial is unable to render a unanimous verdict as to whether the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, the court shall dismiss the petition. (f) If the jury, or the court if a jury trial is waived, determines that the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, then the court shall consider whether the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement or a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision. The parties may offer additional evidence, and the court shall hear argument, as to that issue. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent has a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the respondent is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility, then the court shall find the respondent to be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. In such case, the respondent shall be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he or she no longer requires confinement. If the court does not find that the respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, then the court shall make a finding of disposition that the respondent is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision, and the respondent shall be subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment in accordance with section 10.11 of this article. In making a finding of disposition, the court shall consider the conditions that would be imposed upon the respondent if subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision, and all available information about the prospects for the respondent's possible re-entry into the community.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 259
cases (35 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · 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 (NY 2016).
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 (NY 2016). “Mental Hygiene Law article 10 Proceeding On March 10, 2010, the State commenced a civil commitment proceeding against respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 [a]). The petition alleged that he was a "detained sex offender" who…”
State v. Donald DD., 21 N.E.3d 239 (NY 2014). “In June 2010, a bench trial was held in Supreme Court, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07, on the issue of whether Kenneth T.”
State v. Floyd Y., 2 N.E.3d 204 (NY 2013). “Under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the State must establish at trial, by clear and convincing evidence, that a detained sex offender suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in that statute (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.07 [d]; 10.03 [e]).”
State v. Daniel OO., 88 A.D.3d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “01), it nonetheless provided that a respondent in an article 10 proceeding is entitled to a jury trial at which petitioner must prove that “the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [d]). When a respondent…”
State v. Clarence D., 82 A.D.3d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “The Supreme Court conducted a nonjury trial (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [a], [b]), after which it found that the appellant was a “detained sex offender” under SOMTA and suffers from a “mental abnormality” as that phrase is defined in SOMTA (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.”
State v. Ted B., 132 A.D.3d 28 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). “suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03. After a dispositional hearing, the Supreme Court determined that Ted B.”
State of New York v. Rashid, 942 N.E.2d 225 (NY 2010). “The jury (or judge, if jury trial is waived) must then determine "by clear and convincing evidence whether the respondent is a detained sex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [d]). The Attorney General bears the burden of proof, and any…”
State v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “After the dispositional hearing, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]). On appeal, the appellant contends that the…”
State v. Campany, 77 A.D.3d 92 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “The court subsequently conducted a bench trial on the issue of respondent’s dangerousness to determine whether to confine respondent or to place him on a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; § 10.11).”
State v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d 1250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “After certain other procedural steps, not at issue on this appeal, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial, and a unanimous jury found that the appellant suffers from a “mental abnormality,” as that phrase is defined in SOMTA (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [c], [d]; see also…”
People v. Harnett, 945 N.E.2d 439 (NY 2011). “If he does so, a series of proceedings follows, including a hearing without a jury on whether there is “probable cause to believe” that the person in question is “a sex offender requiring civil management” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 [g]) and a jury trial at which the jury…”
State v. Enrique T., 93 A.D.3d 158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “; Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [a].) Subsequently, if, at trial, a jury finds that the respondent is a sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality, then the court *163 determines the appropriate disposition at a hearing.”
— N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07(f) — 2 cases
Matter of State of New York v. Kerry K., 2023 NY Slip Op 06255 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023).
Matter of State of New York v. Anthony R., 2024 NY Slip Op 03392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
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.