This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. The case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and N.W., who is also known as S.J., as the respondent and appellant.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent and appellant, S.J. is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.
Case Background
The respondent is appealing an order that previously denied his motion for dismissal of the petition of the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent entered a plea of guilty to reckless endangerment of the first degree and was convicted in the Supreme Court of Bronx County. Just over a week later, the respondent entered a plea of guilty for two counts of second degree rape and a count of reckless endangerment of the first degree in the Chautauqua County Court.
For the crimes listed above the respondent was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of two to six years for the convictions of rape and two to six years for the reckless endangerment conviction in the Chautauqua County Court. In addition, for the reckless endangerment conviction in the Bronx County Court the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment of two to six years to run concurrently with all of his other sentences from the Chautauqua Court. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said all of these convictions came from a series of sexual acts with numerous women without disclosing the fact that he was HIV-positive.
A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said this proceeding was started by the petitioner approximately four days before the maximum release date for the respondent. The petition states that the respondent is a detained sex offender and requires civil management. The respondent has moved to have the petition dismissed on the grounds that he did not meet the qualifications as a detained sex offender.
To support his argument the respondent states that he was only serving time for the reckless endangerment charge, which is not covered under Article 10. The petitioner argued that the defendant was serving a sentence for a related offense as well, in this case the counts of rape and that the respondent was still in custody on the sex offenses at the time the petition was commenced.
Case Discussion and Decision
The respondent has moved to have his motion for dismissal of the petition reconsidered on the grounds that the court is required to follow the decision that the court made in the case of the State of New York versus Rashid. In that particular case the court ruled that the respondent was not subject to civil management as he had served his sentence for the sex offenses in question. Rashid was serving probation for a nonsexual offense at the time the petition was started.
In this particular case the court has determined that they are not bound by this decision as the respondent is not distinguishable and was still serving time for a sexual offense when this petition began. For this reason, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the court rules in favor of the petitioners and affirms the decision that was made by the previous court to deny the motion for dismissal.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free consultations to first time visitors of our offices that are in need of legal advice. Our offices are located throughout New York City. You may contact us at any time to set up an appointment to speak with an experience attorney about your legal matter.