SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

459 

CA 15-01713 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STATE OF 

NEW YORK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM D., AN INMATE IN CUSTODY OF THE NEW 

YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, FOR CIVIL MANAGEMENT 

PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 10 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE 

LAW, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA

(MICHAEL H. MCCORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE

OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County

(James C. Tormey, J.), entered August 26, 2015 in a proceeding

pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other

things, denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order dated January

14, 2015. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order denying his motion

to vacate an order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) or, alternatively,

pursuant to Supreme Court’s inherent power to vacate its own orders.

We note at the outset that respondent’s attorney acknowledged in his

supporting affirmation that relief is not available under any of the

grounds set forth in CPLR 5015 (a), and thus respondent relies only

upon the court’s inherent power to vacate its own orders.

The underlying order, entered pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law

article 10, sets forth that respondent currently suffers from a mental

abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) and directs

that he be confined to a secure treatment facility (see § 10.09 [f]). 

Respondent did not appeal from the underlying order. Contrary to

respondent’s contention, we conclude that the court properly denied

his motion. Respondent sought vacatur of the underlying order on the

ground that the evidence presented at the jury trial was not legally

sufficient to show “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or

disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity
-2- 459 

CA 15-01713 

of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission

of conduct constituting a sex offense” (§ 10.03 [i]; see generally

Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d 174, 190-191). 

Although it is well settled that “a court may vacate its own judgment

for sufficient reason and in the interests of substantial justice”

(Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68), under the

circumstances of this case we cannot say that the court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for discretionary vacatur. 

Respondent’s confinement is subject to annual review pursuant to

Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (b) (see generally Matter of Groves v State

of New York, 124 AD3d 1213, 1214), and he may petition for discharge

or release under a regimen of strict and intensive supervision

pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (f). In our view, those

provisions “provide a more appropriate remedy for any of respondent’s

substantive claims” (Matter of State of New York v C.B., 147 AD3d 499,

500).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court