IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, pet-res, v. KEITH F., res-res

3864. IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, pet-res, v. KEITH F., res-res — Marvin Bernstein, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, New York (Sadie Zea Ishee of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Andrew Rhys Davies of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James W. Hubert, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2016, as amended by orders entered February 29, 2016, and June 20, 2016, which, upon a determination that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed him to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3864. IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, pet-res, v. KEITH F., res-res — Marvin Bernstein, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, New York (Sadie Zea Ishee of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Andrew Rhys Davies of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James W. Hubert, J.), entered on or about February 19, 2016, as amended by orders entered February 29, 2016, and June 20, 2016, which, upon a determination that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed him to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed.

The 60-day deadline by which a trial “shall” be commenced, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §10.07(a), is not a “strict time limit[]” (Matter of State of New York v. Enrique T., 93 AD3d 158, 173 [1st Dept 2012], lv dismissed 18 NY3d 976 [2012]). As there is no clear legislative intent to make compliance with that time frame a prerequisite to continued jurisdiction (compare CPL 30.30[1]; 18 USC §3162[a][2]), the failure to commence a trial within 60 days does not mandate dismissal of the petition (see Matter of Grossman v. Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 501 [1977]; see also Dolan v. United States, 560 US 605, 611 [2010]). Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) states repeatedly that failure to comply with various deadlines does not affect the validity of the petition or the various actions subject to those deadlines (see MHL §§10.05[b], [g]; 10.06[h]; 10.08[f]; 10.11[d][2], [4]).

IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, pet-res, v. KEITH F., res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal