| Matter of State of New York v Carmelo M. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03458 [72 AD3d 1102] |
| April 27, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Appellant, v CarmeloM., Respondent. |
—[*1] Mental Hygiene Legal Services, Mineola, N.Y. (Sidney Hirschfeld, Rachael E. Seevers, andDennis B. Feld of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management ofCarmelo M., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, the State of New York appeals,by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), dated October15, 2009, which granted Carmelo M.'s motion to transfer from St. Lawrence Psychiatric Centerto Central New York Psychiatric Center in order to facilitate the attendance of his counsel at hispsychiatric examination pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (d).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and CarmeloM.'s motion to transfer from St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center to Central New York PsychiatricCenter in order to facilitate the attendance of his counsel at his psychiatric examination pursuantto Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (d) is denied.
The Supreme Court determined that there was probable cause to believe that the respondent,Carmelo M., is a sex offender requiring civil management in accordance with Mental HygieneLaw § 10.06 (k). Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed the transfer of the respondent to asecure treatment facility designated by the Commissioner of Mental Health upon his release fromthe correctional facility housing him. The Office of Mental Health transferred the respondent toSt. Lawrence Psychiatric Center. The respondent moved for a transfer from St. LawrencePsychiatric Center to Central New York Psychiatric Center at the time he was to undergo aMental Hygiene Law § 10.06 (d) psychiatric examination on the ground that the distancehis counsel would have to travel to attend the examination at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Centerwas so onerous as to "seriously hinder" counsel's ability "to effectively represent him." TheSupreme Court granted the respondent's motion. We reverse.
The placement of the respondent at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center, and the decision as towhether he should be transferred to another secure treatment facility, are matters committed tothe Office of Mental Health (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.06 [k]; seegenerally People v Purley, 297 AD2d 499 [2002]; Matter of Cole v Smith, 84 AD2d942 [1981]). We cannot conclude that the distance the respondent's counsel [*2]would have to travel to attend the respondent's psychiatricexamination at St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center is so onerous as to "seriously hinder" counsel'sability "to effectively represent him." Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied therespondent's motion. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.