Lahtinen, J.
The extensive procedural background of these two related proceedings in which respondent, a convicted sex offender, was admitted to Central New York Psychiatric Center at the end of his prison term is set forth in the detailed decision of Supreme Court ( Matter of Larry TT., 24 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51286[U]). The record supports Supreme Court's determination that respondent's transfer — which fell during the few months between the Court of Appeals' decision in State of N.Y. ex rel. Harkavy v Consilvio ( 7 NY3d 607) and the effective date of the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act ( see L 2007, ch 7, §§ 1-2, codified as Mental Hygiene Law art 10)"took place under the emergency provision of Correction Law § 402 (9). The required medical opinions were provided to support an emergency transfer and, notwithstanding the apparent mislabeling of some of the paperwork ( cf. Matter of Thomas S., 58 AD3d 1063, 1065), an Assistant Attorney General asserted the emergency provision as the ground for the transfer at a court appearance immediately following the transfer.
We further agree with Supreme Court that respondent is a "[d]etained sex offender" as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (g) (5) ( see State of N.Y. ex rel. Harkavy v Consilvio, 8 NY3d 645, 651-652; Matter of State of New York v Blair, 69 AD3d 15, ", 2009 NY Slip Op 06938, *3 [2009]; People ex rel. David NN. v Hogan, 53 AD3d 841, 844, lv denied 11 NY3d 708). Accordingly, the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 apply to respondent and a hearing should be held expeditiously as provided by that statute.
Ordered that the order and amended order are affirmed, without costs.