Court Opinion

ID: 9779830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:49:55.137984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:42.499001
License: Public Domain

Smith, J. (dissenting).
This case, like People ex rel. Joseph II. v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility (15 NY3d 126 [2010]), presents narrow issues of statutory construction, not the substantive question of how far Mental Hygiene Law article 10 goes, or constitutionally may go, in permitting what amounts to preventive detention for dangerous sex offenders. I join Judge Graffeo’s dissent because I believe she has correctly analyzed the issues that are before us. In doing so, I do not necessarily imply that I think article 10 does, or constitutionally may, permit the detention of Rashid or other prisoners similarly situated. Neither of the main opinions in this case, as I read them, addresses that issue.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Pigott and Jones concur with Judge Read; Judge Graffeo dissents and votes to reverse in a separate opinion in which Judge Smith concurs in another opinion.
Order affirmed, without costs.