Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ANDREW PRATT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL HOGAN, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH, AND DONALD SAWYER, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ANDREW PRATT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner, who is civilly confined at Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC) pursuant to article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment “vacating [CNYPC's] sex offender treatment program” and “directing respondents to cease and desist all programming with any religious foundation, belief, ritualism, connotation or suggestion of religious affiliation” on the ground that such programming violates his constitutional right to freedom of religion. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition inasmuch as a government facility does not violate the constitutional right to freedom of religion merely by offering religion-based sex offender treatment (see Matter of Griffin v. Coughlin, 88 N.Y.2d 674, 677, cert denied 519 U.S. 1054; Alexander v. Schenk, 118 F Supp 2d 298, 302). That right is violated only when an individual is coerced into participating in such programming (see Griffin, 88 N.Y.2d at 677; Warner v Orange County Dept. of Probation, 115 F3d 1068, 1074-1075). To the extent that petitioner contends that he and others similarly situated “are being told that they have to participate in these religious based groups in order to advance in the program so that one day they ‘may’ be allowed to go home and move on with their lives,” the record does not support that contention. Petitioner, who is an atheist, failed to establish that he was required to participate in any religion-based treatment programs offered by CNYPC and, indeed, the documents submitted by petitioner demonstrate that most of the programs cited by petitioner as being religion-based provide nothing more than relaxation, meditation or introspection techniques. The record further establishes that petitioner was free to choose the programs in which he would participate and that there were several secular programs from which he could choose to satisfy his sex offender treatment requirement (see Griffin, 88 N.Y.2d at 677; Warner, 115 F3d at 1075).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CA 10-00669
Decided: December 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)