Matter of State of New York v Roode
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 31, 2008
Supreme Court, Oneida County
In the Matter of the Application of The State of New York, Petitioner,
against
Michael Roode, A patient at Central New York Psychiatric Center, Respondent.
CA2008-2955
Appearances:
Sean Virkler
Assistant Attorney General
207 Genesee Street, Suite 504
Utica, NY 13501-2812
Elizabeth Snyder
Associate Attorney
Mental Health Legal Services
207 Genesee St., Room 1601
Utica, NY 13501-2876
James C. Tormey, J.
A notice of motion to change venue to Dutchess County for an Annual Review
Hearing of the respondent pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Article 10 was made by the
respondent through his attorney, Mental Hygiene Legal Services, and filed on October 1, 2008.
Opposition to the motion to change venue from Oneida County to Dutchess County was filed by
the Attorney General's Office on October 9, 2008. Respondent's counsel, Associate Attorney,
Elizabeth B. Snyder, Mental Health Legal Services, and the New York State Attorney General's
Office represented by Assistant Attorney General Sean Virkler, provided memoranda of law and
various [*2]affidavits in support of and opposition to the motion.
Now, after reviewing all the memoranda of law and affidavits and after hearing arguments on
this matter the Court hereby finds as follows:
The only argument before the court in this motion is whether or not a respondent, after he has been found to have a mental abnormality and has been placed in civil confinement or on strict and intensive supervision and treatment would be entitled to a change of venue for the annual review, which is a hearing to determine whether or not confinement needs to continue, or respondent needs to participate in strict and intensive supervision and treatment or the respondent should be discharged.
Respondent in this case, by and through his attorney, has brought a motion to change venue from Oneida County to Dutchess County for the respondent's annual review. The annual review of the respondent is governed by Mental Hygiene Law Article 10.09 which is entitled "Annual Examination and Petitions for Discharge". Section 10.09(c) states that "the commissioner shall annually forward the notice and waiver form along with the report including commissioner's written determination and findings of psychiatric examination, to the Supreme or County Court where the respondent is located". Section 10.09(d) of Mental Hygiene Law also provides in relevant part that "the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing as to retention of the respondent within 45 days . . .". This part of the statute does not provide any guidance or language to the determination for a change of venue as requested by the respondent herein. The respondent in his moving papers and during arguments argued that the annual review hearing should be changed based on 10.08(e) which states "at any hearing or trial pursuant to provisions of this Article, the court may change venue of the trial to any court for good cause which may include considerations relating to convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent.
When there is a question before the Court for interpretation of new legislation the court would generally look to the legislative intent by reviewing legislative history of any portion of the statute which is not clear on its face. The court is not saying that the statute in this matter is not clear on its face, however, the court did review legislative history which is part of both parties' memoranda of law and submitted papers. From that legislative history and discussion, which in part was before the New York State Assembly on March 6, 2007 and before the New York State Senate on March 5, 2007, the Senate, Assembly and Governor compromised in regard to venue in this bill and agreed to the language of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08(e) which would allow venue of the trial to be changed pursuant to that statute. Even more relevant was the discussion in the Senate wherein Senator Schneiderman, who voted against the bill, stated that ". . . at pages 12 and 13 of the bill there are provisions defining the annual examinations and the petitions for discharge. And at line 55 and 56 of page 12 it makes clear that the evaluation that's conducted annually will be in the Supreme Court or County Court where the respondent is incarcerated; is that not correct?" The sponsor of the bill, Senator Volker, responded, "That's true." Senator Schneiderman then stated ". . . I strongly object to the provision that the court that determines whether or not you can get out or not, once you're civilly confined, is the court where respondent is located; that is, the court where the prison [sic, meaning hospital - correction added] is located. That is not a place where someone is going to necessarily get a fair hearing." The bill then passed without further modifications. Therefore, it appears to this court that the language of the statute is not ambiguous and clearly sets forth that annual reviews must be heard [*3]under the jurisdiction of the county where the respondent is civilly confined, or if on SIST (strict and intensive supervision and treatment) under the jurisdiction of the county where the respondent is residing under that supervision. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petitioner's motion for change of venue is hereby denied, and this matter shall be set down for a hearing in Supreme Court for the County of Oneida.
S/ James C. TormeyHon. James C. Tormey
Justice of Supreme Court
Dated: December 31, 2008
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
