Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Marvin P.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 21, 2014Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSkelos, J.
Upon the application for a subsequent retention order to continue the respondent’s confinement in a secure psychiatric facility, the Supreme Court determined that the respondent neither had a “ [d] angerous mental disorder” nor was “[m]entally ill” (CPL *179330.20 [1] [c], [d]), and directed that the respondent be released upon an order of conditions. The majority concludes that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the appellants met their burden of proving that the respondent had a “[d] anger ous mental disorder” (CPL 330.20 [1] [c]), requiring his continued confinement in a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Matter of George L.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. EscobarNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Matter of David B.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Matter of Francis S.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Jamie R. v. ConsilvioNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.