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 § 10.13 (2026)

Appeals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 10.13 Appeals.
  (a) The attorney general may, in the appellate division of the supreme
court, seek a stay of any order under this article releasing a person
under this article.
  (b) The attorney general may appeal as of right from an order entered
pursuant to subdivision (k) of section 10.06 of this article dismissing
the petition following a determination that probable cause to believe
that the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management has not
been established. No appeal may be taken from an order entered pursuant
to subdivision (k) of section 10.06 of this article determining that
probable cause has been established to believe the respondent is a sex
offender requiring civil management. Both the respondent and the
attorney general may appeal from any final order entered pursuant to
this article. The provisions of articles fifty-five, fifty-six, and
fifty-seven of the civil practice law and rules shall govern appeals
taken from orders entered pursuant to this article.
  (c) In connection with any appeal, a respondent who is or becomes
financially unable to obtain counsel shall have the right to have
appellate counsel appointed on his or her behalf. Such counsel shall be
appointed by the court to which an appeal is taken. If possible, the
court shall appoint the mental hygiene legal service. In the event that
the court determines that the mental hygiene legal service cannot accept
appointment, the court shall appoint an attorney eligible for
appointment pursuant to article eighteen-B of the county law, or an
entity, if any, that has contracted for the delivery of legal
representation services under subdivision (c) of section 10.15 of this
article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: State v. Stein, 85 A.D.3d 1646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stein, 85 A.D.3d 1646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “Respondent’s contention regarding the order issued following the probable cause hearing is not properly before us because no appeal lies from such an order (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]). We have considered respondent’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without…”
State v. Daniel OO., 88 A.D.3d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “Should the jury find that petitioner met that high burden, respondent is free to raise that issue on an appeal from the final order (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]). Even then, respondent has further remedies available if these protections do not prevent his erroneous…”
State v. Lonard ZZ., 100 A.D.3d 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Respondent also contends that Supreme Court erred in allowing this testimony at the probable cause hearing (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06). However, no appeal lies from an order determining that probable cause has been established (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.”
State v. Reeve, 87 A.D.3d 1378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). ““Respondent’s contention regarding the order issued following the probable cause hearing is not properly before us because no appeal lies from such an order” (Matter of State of New York v Stein, 85 AD3d 1646, 1648 [2011]; see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]). Respondent’s…”
State v. Flagg, 71 A.D.3d 1528 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “We note that, contrary to the assertion of respondent, petitioner’s contention is properly before us (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]; see CPLR 5501 [c]).”
State v. Rashid, 25 Misc. 3d 318 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009). “” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [a].) It seems obvious that this provision was inserted into the statute to allow the appellate courts, upon the State’s motion, to quickly review any order by a trial court releasing a respondent in order to help ensure that potentially dangerous…”
State v. Mack, 28 Misc. 3d 180 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 (b) expressly states that the provisions of articles 55, 56 and 57 of the CPLR “shall govern appeals taken from orders entered pursuant to [article 10].”
Matter of State of New York v. Michael T., 2022 NY Slip Op 05851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “The appellant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the State to offer evidence of rape paraphilia at the probable cause hearing is not properly before this Court ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13[b]; Matter of State of New York v Daniel J.”
People ex rel. Tumminia v. Griffin, 118 A.D.3d 1174 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “Here, as petitioner candidly acknowledges in his reply brief, there are other procedural avenues available to pursue the very claims he now raises—most notably, a direct appeal from any final order entered in the underlying SOMTA proceeding (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]).…”
State v. Ralph P., 54 Misc. 3d 171 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “{See Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [a] [allowing the Attorney General to seek a stay in the Appellate Division of any order under article 10 releasing a respondent].”
State of New York v. Reeve, Keith (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). ““Respondent’s contention regarding the order issued following the probable cause hearing is not properly before us because no appeal lies from such an order” (Matter of State of New York v Stein, 85 AD3d 1646, 1648 ; see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13 [b]). Respondent’s further…”
State v. Lonard ZZ., 100 A.D.3d 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Respondent also contends that Supreme Court erred in allowing this testimony at the probable cause hearing (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06). However, no appeal lies from an order determining that probable cause has been established (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.”
Show all 14 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.