IN RE: STATE of New York (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Tara A. Collins, J.), entered March 8, 2024, which ordered respondent confined in a secure treatment facility as a dangerous sex offender, and bringing up for review an order, same court (David L. Lewis), entered May 5, 2023, finding, after a nonjury trial, that respondent is a detained sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 10, and an order, same court (Tara A. Collins), entered February 7, 2024, finding, after a dispositional hearing, that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.  The totality of respondent's diagnosed mental abnormalities supports the finding that he has more than one “condition, disease or disorder” that predispose him to commit sex offenses and that will result in his having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i];  see Matter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 743, 37 N.Y.S.3d 765, 59 N.E.3d 500 [2016], cert denied 580 U.S. 1023, 137 S.Ct. 579, 196 L.Ed.2d 452 [2016];  Matter of State of New York v. Richard V., 228 A.D.3d 109, 118, 210 N.Y.S.3d 52 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Furthermore, the State experts linked respondent's diagnoses to his predisposition to commit sex crimes and his difficulty in controlling his sex-offending behavior (see Matter of State of New York v. David D., 206 A.D.3d 481, 485, 169 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2022]).

Contrary to respondent's position otherwise, Supreme Court did not contravene the statutory requirement that it consider “all available information about the prospects for the respondent's possible re-entry into the community,” as well as “the conditions that would be imposed upon the respondent if subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision” (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]).  Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that the mental abnormalities from which respondent suffers involve such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses and such an inability to control his behavior that he is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if he is not confined to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f];  David D., 206 A.D.3d at 485–486, 169 N.Y.S.3d 312).  Although there was expert testimony that respondent could find better treatment options if he lived in a community-based residential treatment center, community-based treatment was not a dispositional option available to the court (see Matter of State of New York v. Nelson D., 22 N.Y.3d 233, 238–239, 980 N.Y.S.2d 337, 3 N.E.3d 674 [2013];  Matter of State of New York v. Mahwee S., 232 A.D.3d 1325, 1326, 222 N.Y.S.3d 845 [4th Dept. 2024]).