| Matter of Charles S. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02369 [60 AD3d 954] |
| March 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Charles S., Appellant. State of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin N. Gutman and RobertC. Weisz of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management ofCharles S., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, Charles S. appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), dated May 30, 2008, which, in effect,granted the motion of the State of New York for leave to attend and videotape his court-orderedevaluation, to be conducted by a psychiatric examiner of his choosing pursuant to MentalHygiene Law § 10.06 (e) and to videotape any court-ordered evaluation of him that maybe conducted by a psychiatric examiner of its choosing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law §10.06 (d). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 31, 2008, enforcement of theorder was stayed pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and themotion of the State of New York for leave to attend and videotape the court-ordered evaluationof Charles S. to be conducted by a psychiatric examiner of his choosing pursuant to MentalHygiene Law § 10.06 (e) and to videotape any court-ordered evaluation of Charles S. thatmay be conducted by a psychiatric examiner of its choosing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.06 (d) is denied.
The State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article10 for the civil management of Charles S. (hereinafter the appellant), an alleged sex offenderrequiring civil management. Prior to the trial of the matter, the appellant requested the court todirect that [*2]he be evaluated by a psychiatric examiner of hischoosing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (e). In response, the State moved forleave to attend and videotape that evaluation. The State also sought leave to videotape anyevaluation of the appellant to be conducted by a psychiatric examiner of its own choosing,pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (d), that may be ordered by the court in responseto any request for such an evaluation that it may make in the future. Although the appellantformally opposed all aspects of the State's motion, he indicated that he is not opposed to theState's attendance at any evaluation that may be conducted by a psychiatric examiner chosen bythe State. The Supreme Court, in effect, granted the State's motion in its entirety. We reverse.
Although Mental Hygiene Law article 10 sets forth various rules and procedures relating tocourt-ordered psychiatric evaluations conducted pursuant thereto, it is entirely silent as towhether the State may attend and/or videotape a court-ordered independent psychiatricevaluation and as to whether the State may videotape a court-ordered evaluation conducted by apsychiatric examiner of its choosing. " '[A] court cannot amend a statute by inserting words thatare not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fitto enact' " (Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v Jorling, 85 NY2d 382, 394[1995], quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 363, at 525; seeJanssen v Incorporated Vil. of Rockville Ctr., 59 AD3d 15 [2008]). Inasmuch as there is noprovision in Mental Hygiene Law article 10 which expressly permits the relief requested by theState, we will not insert such language into the statute.
Accordingly, the State's motion should have been denied it its entirety. Rivera, J.P.,Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.