Respondent was not subject to civil management pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 where he had served his sentence for a 1988 rape and sodomy and was on parole for a nonsexual offense and, in September 2008, the Division of Parole gave notice identifying him as a possible "detained sex offender" nearing release from custody. The different consequences of a Sexual Offender Registration Act determination and the possibility of involuntary civil commitment under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 ( compare People v Knox, 12 NY3d 60, with Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Spitzer, 2007 WL 4115936, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 85163 [SD NY 2007], affd 2009 WL 579445, 2009 US App LEXIS 4942 [2d Cir 2009]), as well as the specific definition in the latter regarding which sentences other than those for sex offenses may be considered in determining an offender's eligibility for civil management ( see generally People v Finley, 10 NY3d 647, 655), render Penal Law § 70.30 inapplicable for the purpose of merging the sentence for the rape into respondent's subsequent sentence for the nonsexual offense ( cf. People v Buss, 11 NY3d 553). Contrary to the State's contention, Penal Law § 70.30 and Mental Hygiene Law article 10 are not so related that they must be harmonized ( cf. Rector, Church Wardens Vestrymen of St. Bartholomew's Church v Committee to Preserve St. Bartholomew's Church, 84 AD2d 309, 313, appeal dismissed 56 NY2d 645).
We have considered the State's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
[Prior Case History: 25 Misc 3d 318.]