In Matter of Charles S. (60 AD3d 954, 955, 875 NYS2d 263 [2d Dept 2009]), the Appellate Division held that while new york mental hygiene law article 10 "sets forth various rules and procedures relating to court-ordered psychiatric evaluations conducted pursuant thereto, it is entirely silent as to whether the State may attend and/or videotape a court-ordered independent psychiatric evaluation and as to whether the State may videotape a court-ordered evaluation conducted by a psychiatric examiner of its choosing." Relying on Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. (85 NY2d 382, 394, 649 NE2d 1145, 626 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1995]), it held that a "court cannot amend a statute by inserting words that are not there, nor will a court read into a statute a provision which the Legislature did not see fit to enact." (Charles S., 60 AD3d at 955.) Since there was no provision in Mental Hygiene Law article 10 which expressly permitted the relief sought by the State, the court held that it will "not insert such language into the statute" (Charles S., 60 AD3d at 955). Similarly, in Matter of State v. Bernard D., (61 AD3d 567, 877 NYS2d 84 [1st Dept 2009]), the Appellate Division also held that because new york mental hygiene law article 10 contains no express provision autho-rizing the State to videotape psychiatric examinations of sex offenders pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law 10.06, the State was not entitled to do so. It concluded that the "Legislature intended that the courts not have the discretion to order" such videotaping (Bernard D., 61 AD3d at 567).