In Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 79 AD3d 758 [2d Dept 2010] discussing and describing the probable cause standard of proof, the Second Department observed that "the term 'probable cause' is not defined in Mental Hygiene Law article 10. In the context of a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding, courts have adopted the standard applicable to a preliminary hearing in a criminal case, namely, whether there exists 'reasonable cause to believe' that the sex offender requires civil management, and have rejected a heightened standard of proof such as the 'clear and convincing' standard or the 'fair preponderance of the evidence' standard." (Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous at 759-760 .) The Anonymous court found that the "reasonable cause to believe" standard of proof should apply at a probable cause hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Elaborating upon its conclusion, the Second Department indicated that the purpose of a probable cause hearing "is 'simply to ensure that there is a basis for holding the respondent for trial, at which time a heightened [clear and convincing] standard of inquiry will apply,' as provided under Mental Hygiene Law 10.07 (d) [and that] in assessing probable cause, 'it would not make sense at this prelimi nary stage to impose a high standard of proof similar to the one that will ultimately be used by the finder of fact after presentation of all of the evidence' " (id. at 760 ).