IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF STATE OF (2018)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  Respondent appeals from an order revoking his regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment, determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, and committing him to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.).  Contrary to respondent's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner (see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 348 [2014], rearg. denied 24 NY3d 933 [2014] ), we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of Supreme Court that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, i.e., that he has “a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility”

(§ 10.03[e];  cf.  Matter of State of New York v Michael M., 24 NY3d 649, 658–660 [2014] ).

We further conclude that the determination that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is not against the weight of the evidence.  The court was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the uncontradicted testimony of petitioner's expert, and we see no reason to disturb the court's determination (see Matter of State of New York v Peters, 144 AD3d 1654, 1656 [4th Dept 2016] ).  Respondent's contention that petitioner's expert psychiatric examiner misapplied certain assessment tests is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see Matter of State of New York v Breeden, 140 AD3d 1649, 1650 [4th Dept 2016] ).

Mark W. Bennett

Clerk of the Court