As an initial matter, many New York trial courts, in Article 10 cases, have found that the Attorney General has made a sufficient showing of dangerousness and that no lesser conditions would suffice to protect the community to justify pre-trial confinement of a respondent. For example, in Matter of New York v. C.B., 19 Misc.3d 1103(A), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50488(U), *4–5, 2008 WL 695543 (Sup.Ct., Bronx Co.2008), the trial court determined that respondent's criminal history, his failure to take prescribed medication, his non-participation in sex offender treatment either at that current time or while he had been incarcerated, respondent's lascivious behavior and exhibitionism while in Manhattan Psychiatric Center, and expert opinion that respondent would be a danger to the public if treated in an outpatient or community based setting were evidence that there is probable cause that respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management and that he is sufficiently dangerous to require confinement because no lesser conditions of supervision would suffice to keep the public safe during the pendency of the action. Although the trial court in State v. P.H., 22 Misc.3d 689, 711–12, 874 N.Y.S.2d 733 (Sup.Ct., New York Co.2008), also agreed with and adopted the holding of MHLS–I, the decision was bereft of any facts to

As an initial matter, many New York trial courts, in Article 10 cases, have found that the Attorney General has made a sufficient showing of dangerousness and that no lesser conditions would suffice to protect the community to justify pre-trial confinement of a respondent. For example, in Matter of New York v. C.B., 19 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2008 NY Slip Op. 50488U, *4-5 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co. 2008), the trial court determined that respondent's criminal history, his failure to take prescribed medication, his non-participation in sex offender treatment either at that current time or while he had been incarcerated, respondent's lascivious behavior and exhibitionism while in Manhattan Psychiatric Center, and expert opinion that respondent would be a danger to the public if treated in an outpatient or community based setting were evidence that there is probable cause that respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management and that he is sufficiently dangerous to require confinement because no lesser conditions of supervision would suffice to keep the public safe during the pendency of the action. Although the trial court in State v. P.H., 22 Misc 3d 689, 711-12 (Sup. Ct., New York Co. 2008), also agreed with and adopted the holding of MHLS I, the decision was bereft of any facts to show that no lesser conditions of su

As an initial matter, many New York trial courts, in Article 10 cases, have found that the Attorney General has made a sufficient showing of dangerousness and that no lesser conditions would suffice to protect the community to justify pre-trial confinement of a respondent. For example, in Matter of New York v. C.B., 19 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2008 NY Slip Op. 50488U, *4-5 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co. 2008), the trial court determined that respondent's criminal history, his failure to take prescribed medication, his non-participation in sex offender treatment either at that current time or while he had been incarcerated, respondent's lascivious behavior and exhibitionism while in Manhattan Psychiatric Center, and expert opinion that respondent would be a danger to the public if treated in an outpatient or community based setting were evidence that there is probable cause that respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management and that he is sufficiently dangerous to require confinement because no lesser conditions of supervision would suffice to keep the public safe during the pendency of the action. Although the trial court in State v. P.H., 22 Misc 3d 689, 711-12 (Sup. Ct., New York Co. 2008), also agreed with and adopted the holding of MHLS I, the decision was bereft of any facts to show that no lesser conditions of s

The issues are at once more difficult and more significant than those which will tend to arise in the vast majority of criminal proceedings. In the view of this court, the most cogent analysis of the probable cause issue in the article 10 context which has yet been made was articulated by Justice Dawson in Matter of State of New York v C.B. ( 19 Misc 3d 1103[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50488[U] [Sup Ct, Bronx County 2008]). There, Justice Dawson explained: