| Matter of David G. v State of New York |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02571 |
| Decided on May 1, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on May 1, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
393 CA 19-00719
v
STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
SARAH M. FALLON, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA (BENJAMIN D. AGATA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Gerald J. Popeo, A.J.), entered February 19, 2019 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, inter alia, denied that part of the motion of petitioner seeking a change of venue.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, petitioner appeals from an order that, inter alia, denied that part of his motion seeking a change of venue to Suffolk County for the convenience of witnesses (see generally Matter of Tyrone D. v State of New York, 24 NY3d 661, 666 [2015]). We affirm.
Petitioner was previously determined to be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement and was committed to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.), and he is currently confined at the Central New York Psychiatric Center in Oneida County. The court may change the venue of an annual review proceeding " to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the [confined sex offender]' " (Tyrone D., 24 NY3d at 666, quoting § 10.08 [e]). "To establish good cause for a change of venue, the party seeking such relief must set forth specific facts sufficient to demonstrate a sound basis for the transfer . . . Conclusory statements unsupported by facts are insufficient to warrant a change of venue" (Matter of State of New York v Williams, 92 AD3d 1271, 1271-1272 [4th Dept 2012]). Here, petitioner failed to make a sufficient factual or evidentiary showing that a transfer was necessary for the convenience of the proposed witnesses (see id. at 1272).
Entered: May 1, 2020
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court