Majority
The extensive procedural background of these two related
We further agree with Supreme Court that respondent is a “[d]etained sex offender” as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (g) (5) (see State of N.Y. ex rel. Harkavy v Consilvio, 8 NY3d 645 , 651-652 [2007]; Matter of State of New York v Blair, 69 AD3d 15 , —, 2009 NY Slip Op 06938 , *3 [2009]; People ex rel. David NN. v Hogan, 53 AD3d 841 , 844 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 708 [2008]). Accordingly, the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 apply to respondent and a hearing should be held expeditiously as provided by that statute.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and amended order are affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio 7 NY3d 607 p. 1230
- In re Veress 58 AD3d 1063 at 1065 p. 1230
- State ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio 8 NY3d 645 at 651-652 p. 1230
- State v. Blair 69 AD3d 15 p. 1230
- People ex rel. David NN. v. Hogan 53 AD3d 841 at 844 p. 1230