Legal Opinion
State v. P.H.
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 9, 2008PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Daniel P. Conviser, J.
Respondent is the subject of a sex offender civil management petition filed pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law. A hearing was conducted before me on September 22, 2008 to determine whether probable cause exists to believe EH. is a sex offender requiring civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (k). The petitioner called one witness, Dr. Erika Frances. Although the court did not credit certain aspects of her testimony, as explained infra, the court found her testimony to be credible. The respondent did not call any…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Maryland v. PringleSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- People v. CarrasquilloNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Hambsch v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- People v. SugdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- People v. ShulmanNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. Adrien S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- State v. Enrique T.New York Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. Adrien S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014