§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Michael Diack, Appellant.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. Doe v. Pataki

    120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997)   Cited 287 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New York's sex-offender registration statute's in-person registration requirement did not make the statute punitive

  2. State v. Shannon S.

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7228 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 92 times
    Holding proving mental abnormality does not "require that a diagnosis be limited to mental disorders enumerated within the DSM" to meet the statutory requirement

  3. Jancyn Mfg. v. Suffolk County

    71 N.Y.2d 91 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that State law did not preempt a county ordinance prohibiting sale of sewage system cleaning additives where there was no express conflict with State Environmental Control Law

  4. Incorporated Village of Nyack v. Daytop Village, Inc.

    78 N.Y.2d 500 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 71 times
    Discussing New York Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 10, which gives counties the power to enact local laws in a wide range of matters relating to local concern, as long as the local legislation is not inconsistent with the State Constitution or with any general law of the State

  5. In re Daniel Gierszewski

    81 A.D.3d 1473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 27 times

    No. CA 09-00462. February 18, 2011. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered February 2, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other things, ordered that respondent be supervised by the Division of Parole under conditions of strict and intensive supervision and treatment. DAVISON LAW OFFICE, PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARK C. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ANDREW M. CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

  6. State of New York v. Donald

    63 A.D.3d 1391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 28 times

    June 18, 2009. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), entered July 3, 2008 in Otsego County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, found respondent to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility. Before: Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Spain, J. In 2002, respondent was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, arising out of an incident involving two adolescent girls, and sentenced to a prison term

  7. In re State of N.Y

    69 A.D.3d 165 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 27 times

    No. 506148. October 22, 2009. APPEAL from an order of the Supreme Court, Schuyler County (Elizabeth A. Garry, J.), entered June 10, 2008. The order found respondent to be a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment. Sheila E. Shea, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Albany ( Hollie S. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany ( Andrew B. Ayers of counsel), for respondent. Before: PETERS, LAHTINEN, MALONE JR. and STEIN, JJ., concur. OPINION

  8. State v. Nelson D.

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7827 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 18 times

    No. 194 11-26-2013 In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v. Nelson D., Appellant. Diane Goldstein Temkin, for appellant. Leslie B. Dubeck, for respondent. RIVERA Diane Goldstein Temkin, for appellant. Leslie B. Dubeck, for respondent. RIVERA, J.: In this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding, respondent Nelson D. ("Nelson D.") appeals from an Appellate Division order that affirmed an amended Supreme Court order directing his involuntary commitment at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive

  9. Vatore v. Consumer Affairs

    83 N.Y.2d 645 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Determining that the inference to be drawn from the legislature having given preclusive effect to one section of N.Y. Pub. Health Law art. 13–F was a concomitant intention not to give preclusive effect to any other section of the statute because the presence of an express preemption provision in one part of the statute implies that the legislature intended to omit preemption from the other sections

  10. Matter of Lansdown Ent. v. Ct. Dept of Consumer

    74 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 41 times

    Argued June 6, 1989 Decided July 11, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, David B. Saxe, J. Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Julian L. Kalkstein and Larry A. Sonnenshein of counsel), for appellants. James M. Felix and Stephen E. Powers for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Petitioner operates the Limelight, a popular discotheque, which is licensed as a "cabaret" by respondent

  11. Section 365.3 - Statement of purpose

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 365.3   Cited 8 times

    (a) Chapter 568 of the Laws of 2008 requires the Division of Parole (DOP), the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA), and the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to promulgate regulations to provide guidance concerning the placement and/or approval of housing for certain sex offenders. (b) The State has previously enacted laws concerning sex offenders, including the Sex Offender Registration Act, the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, the Electronic Security

  12. Section 365.4 - Procedures

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 365.4   Cited 2 times

    (a) When investigating and/or approving a residence of any such SORA Level 2 or 3 probationer, the probation department shall consider the following: (1) the location of other sex offenders required to register under SORA, specifically whether there is a concentration of registered sex offenders in a certain residential area or municipality; (2) the number of registered sex offenders residing at a particular property; (3) the proximity of entities with vulnerable populations; (4) accessibility to