Matter of State of New York v. Bolster

DUTCHESS COUNTY
Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   |0 Comments

Justice James Pagones

The court noted, at a hearing, probable cause was found that Bolster was a sex offender requiring civil management. Bolster was committed to a secure treatment facility and was not to be released pending completion of trial. The State now moved to change venue of the proceeding to Tompkins County, while Bolster opposed. The state provided the names of eight potential witnesses who were either state or county employees, and worked at locations closer to Tompkins than Dutchess County. The court stated the convenience of state and local government officials was of paramount importance as they should not be unnecessarily kept from their duties. The state claimed the witnesses would experience undue hardship if required to travel over 150 miles one way. It also noted that Bolster's two victims lived closer to Tompkins than Dutchess County, and could expect the same hardship if required to travel to testify in Poughkeepsie. The court noted the only connection to Dutchess was Bolster's incarceration in the Fishkill Correctional Facility at the time the proceeding was initiated. It found the state established sufficient good cause to change venue of the trial to Tompkins County, granting the motion.

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202584650274

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.