IN RE: JOSEPH R. (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order, entered after an annual review hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d), determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under section 10.03 (e) and directing that he continue to be confined to a secure treatment facility (see § 10.09 [h]). We affirm.

Contrary to petitioner's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 348 [2014], rearg denied 24 NY3d 933 [2014]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [d], [h]). “A person may be found to be a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement if that person ‘suffer[s] from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility’ ” (Matter of Ezra B. v State of New York, 221 AD3d 1597, 1598 [4th Dept 2023], quoting § 10.03 [e]; see Matter of Nushawn W. v State of New York, 215 AD3d 1227, 1228 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 901 [2023]). Here, petitioner does not dispute on appeal that he suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law (see Matter of Richard R. v State of New York, 218 AD3d 1282, 1282-1283 [4th Dept 2023]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that respondent presented legally sufficient evidence that petitioner has serious difficulty controlling his behavior within the meaning of the Mental Hygiene Law. Respondent established, among other things, that petitioner refused to engage in treatment despite respondent's attempts to encourage his participation and that petitioner, despite his age of 60, still had high scores on his risk assessment instruments (see id. at 1283; see also Matter of Ruben M. v State of New York, 211 AD3d 1590, 1592 [4th Dept 2022]).

Next, to the extent that petitioner contends that Supreme Court's determination that he is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is against the weight of the evidence, we reject that contention. The evidence does not preponderate so greatly in petitioner's favor that the court could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Nushawn W., 215 AD3d at 1229; Matter of State of New York v Orlando T., 184 AD3d 1149, 1149 [4th Dept 2020]). Petitioner notably did not present any evidence refuting the opinion of respondent's expert that petitioner remains a dangerous sex offender, and we see no reason to disturb the court's decision to credit the testimony of respondent's expert (see Matter of John H. v State of New York, 246 AD3d 1452, 1454 [4th Dept 2026]).

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court