IN RE: KIRBY FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC CENTER (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, J.), entered on or about May 9, 2024, which granted petitioner's application for a second retention order pursuant to CPL 330.20 for continued confinement of respondent in a secure facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying respondent's application for the appointment of an independent psychiatric expert (see CPL 330.20[15];  Judiciary Law § 35[4]).  In deciding a CPL 330.20 proceeding, courts rely on testimony from the State's medical experts and, potentially, testimony from the respondent's retained expert or a respondent themselves (see Matter of Belfi v. Gene B., 218 A.D.3d 401, 405, 193 N.Y.S.3d 11 [1st Dept. 2023]).  A court has discretion to appoint additional experts if it is not satisfied with the findings of the experts chosen by the State (CPL 330.20[15]).  Respondent here does not argue that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that confinement was warranted.  The expert who testified at the proceeding addressed all the required factors (see e.g. Matter of Belfi, 218 A.D.3d at 405, 193 N.Y.S.3d 11).  Further, the court did not express dissatisfaction with the evidence presented or state that additional expert testimony would have been helpful for it to understand any issues involved.

As for respondent's due process claim, we find that respondent has not established that additional expert testimony was “necessary to a reliable assessment” of his mental condition or a determination of this application (see Matter of Paul B., 217 A.D.3d 1555, 1555–1556, 193 N.Y.S.3d 470 [4th Dept. 2023], lv dismissed 42 N.Y.3d 944, 218 N.Y.S.3d 806, 243 N.E.3d 1247 [2024];  see also Goetz v. Crosson, 967 F.2d 29, 36–37 [2d Cir. 1992]).  In any event, any proposed remedy is in the province of the legislature.

We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.