IN RE: STATE of New York (2022)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Michael T., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Michael T. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), dated September 28, 2020.  The order, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that Michael T. suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In December 2018, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of the appellant.  At a nonjury trial, the State presented the testimony of two expert witnesses.  Both of the State's experts diagnosed the appellant with other specified personality disorder with antisocial, narcissistic, and schizoid traits, and cannabis use disorder.  They both opined that the appellant was an individual with a mental abnormality as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i).

At the trial, the appellant presented the testimony of his own expert.  The appellant's expert diagnosed the appellant with cannabis use disorder, other specified anxiety disorder, and avoidant personality disorder.  He opined that the appellant was not an individual with a mental abnormality as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i).

The Supreme Court credited the testimony of the State's two experts and determined that the State had sustained its burden of demonstrating that the appellant was an individual with a mental abnormality as that term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i).  Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support that finding.  The evidence supported a finding that the appellant has more than one “condition, disease or disorder” that, together, predispose him to commit sex offenses and result in him having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct (id.;  see Matter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 751–752, 37 N.Y.S.3d 765, 59 N.E.3d 500;  Matter of State of New York v. David D., 206 A.D.3d 481, 482, 169 N.Y.S.3d 312;  Matter of State of New York v. Marcello A., 180 A.D.3d 786, 788, 118 N.Y.S.3d 688).  Moreover, the finding was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v. Christian R., 200 A.D.3d 1046, 1048, 161 N.Y.S.3d 211).

The appellant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the State to offer evidence of rape paraphilia at the probable cause hearing is not properly before this Court (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13[b];  Matter of State of New York v. Daniel J., 180 A.D.3d 1347, 1348, 118 N.Y.S.3d 346).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and FORD, JJ., concur.