In re State of N.Y

10 Citing cases

  1. In Matter of New York v. Rashid

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1316 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 25 times

    The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.; op 25 Misc 3d 318), which had (1) granted respondent's motion to dismiss a petition seeking sex offender civil management of respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, and (2) dismissed the petition. Matter of State of New York v Rashid, 68 AD3d 615, affirmed. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City ( Laura R. Johnson, Barbara D. Underwood and Benjamin N. Gutman of counsel), for appellant.

  2. State v. Williams

    92 A.D.3d 1274 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    In Williams, the Court held that a respondent serving a prison sentence for reckless endangerment (a non-sexual offense under Article 10) which had commenced consecutively to sentences for second degree rape (sex offenses under the statute) was a Detained Sex Offender.

    Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, denied the motion. Respondent thereafter moved for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss on the ground that the court was required to follow the decision of the First Department in Matter of State of New York v. Rashid, 68 A.D.3d 615, 892 N.Y.S.2d 76, affd. 16 N.Y.3d 1, 917 N.Y.S.2d 16, 942 N.E.2d 225. In that case, the Court concluded that the respondent was not subject to civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 because he had served his sentence for the sex offenses in question and was on parole for a nonsexual offense at the time the proceeding was commenced ( id.). Before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision in the appeal from the First Department's decision in Rashid, Supreme Court adhered to its decision denying the motion to dismiss on the ground that Rashid was distinguishable and thus that it was not bound by that decision.

  3. People v. Nieves

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 50522 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    People v. Nieves, 2010 Slip. Op. 20070, 2010 WL 716177, (the "Decision"). The Court also references the following holdings discussed in the Decision in the instant decision and order: People v. Mills , 11 NY3d 527 (2008); People v. Buss 11 NY3d 553 (2008); State v. Rashid 25 Misc 3d 318, aff'd 68 AD3d 615 (1st Dept 2009). The text of this Court's previous Decision is hereby incorporated by reference and the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that Decision will not be repeated here.

  4. People v. Nieves

    27 Misc. 3d 585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    This Court recently analyzed the Buss rule in the context of its application to sex offender civil management proceedings under Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law in a decision which was affirmed by the First Department. State v. Rashid, 25 Misc.3d 318, 883 N.Y.S.2d 435 (New York County 2009), aff'd, 68 A.D.3d 615, 892 N.Y.S.2d 76 (1st Dept. 2009). In Buss, the Court of Appeals held that where an offender is convicted of a sex crime and later convicted of a non-sexual offense for which the offender receives a consecutive sentence, the two sentences, for SORA purposes, are deemed to have been “made into one”. 11 N.Y.3d at 557, 872 N.Y.S.2d 413, 900 N.E.2d 964.

  5. People v. Nieves

    27 Misc. 3d 585 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    Buss construed the consecutive sentencing calculation provisions of Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (b) as that statute applied to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). This court recently analyzed the Buss rule in the context of its application to sex offender civil management proceedings under article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law in a decision which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. ( Matter of State of New York v Rashid, 25 Misc 3d 318 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009], affd 68 AD3d 615 [1st Dept 2009].) In Buss, the Court of Appeals held that where an offender is convicted of a sex crime and later convicted of a nonsexual offense for which the offender receives a consecutive sentence, the two sentences, for SORA purposes, are deemed to have been " made into one."

  6. In re Rashid

    934 N.E.2d 320 (N.Y. 2010)

    decided August 31, 2010. Reported below, 68 AD3d 615. Motion to vacate stay denied.

  7. In re Rashid

    14 N.Y.3d 711 (N.Y. 2010)

    May 11, 2010. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 68 AD3d 615. Motions for Leave to Appeal denied.

  8. State v. Lance S.

    72 Misc. 3d 798 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    This Court ruled on the initial motion dismissing the petition in Matter of State of New York v. Rashid, 25 Misc 3d 318 (Sup Ct. NY County 2009). That decision was affirmed by the First Department (68 AD3d 615 (1st Dept 2009)) and the First Department's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The acronym "DOCS" (Department of Correctional Services) rather than "DOCCS" (Department of Corrections and Community Supervision) was used in Rashid since the decision was published prior to the agency merger.

  9. People v. Aleynikov

    83 N.Y.S.3d 798 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018)

    But these authorities, in this Court's view, did not constitute a change in the law sufficient to obviate the application of the law of the case doctrine. This Court's legal citations to the law of the case doctrine here are copied from an earlier decision of this Court in an unrelated case, State v. Rashid , 25 Misc.3d 318, 328, 883 N.Y.S.2d 435 (New York County Supreme Court 2009), aff'd , 68 A.D.3d 615, 892 N.Y.S.2d 76 (1st Dept. 2009) ; aff'd , 16 N.Y.3d 1, 917 N.Y.S.2d 16, 942 N.E.2d 225 (2010).In any event, the New York Court of Appeals and the First Department construed the tangibility issue in the instant case as being different than the tangibility issue addressed by the Second Circuit. The First Department and the Court of Appeals believed the issue addressed by the Second Circuit in Aleynikov was whether the source code, in the abstract, was intangible.

  10. State of New York v. Nelson

    30 Misc. 3d 715 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)   Cited 7 times
    In State of New York v Nelson (30 Misc 3d 715 [Sup Ct, NY County 2010]), this court recently analyzed the question of whether the retroactive designation of certain non-sex crimes as "sexually motivated" felonies eligible for coverage under SOMTA violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.

    Such a person faces possible lifetime confinement or lifetime strict and intensive supervision and treatment. ( See Matter of State of New York v Rashid, 25 Misc 3d 318, 336 [Sup Ct, NY County, July 1, 2009], affd 68 AD3d 615 [1st Dept 2009], lv granted 14 NY3d 711 ["`(i)nvoluntary civil confinement "may entail indefinite confinement, (which) could be a more intrusive exercise of state power than incarceration following a criminal conviction"`" (quoting Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Spitzer, 2007 WL 4115936, *6, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 85163, *21 [SD NY, Nov. 16, 2007], affd sub nom. Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. v Paterson, 2009 WL 579445, 2009 US App LEXIS 4942 [2d Cir, Mar. 4, 2009], quoting Project Release v Prevost, 722 F2d 960, 971 [2d Cir 1983])].)