IN RE: State of New York (2026)

Argued—January 13, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

C/

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Anthony M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Anthony M. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephen A. Knopf, J.), dated January 23, 2024.  The order, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that Anthony M. 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 for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

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

In Florida in 1984, the appellant was convicted, upon his pleas of guilty, of multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual battery, armed burglary, armed kidnapping, and related offenses, in relation to his conduct occurring over the course of two months in 1983.  In two separate incidents, the appellant followed a female victim to her home, forced his way inside, and raped her at knife point.  In a third incident, the appellant followed a female victim to her home, forced his way inside, attempted to rape the victim at knife point, and cut the victim so that she bled profusely.  The appellant was released from the Florida prison in 1993 and came to New York. Just four months from his release, the appellant again began a series of rapes that spanned three months, in which he followed female victims into residential buildings and raped them at knife point.  The appellant fled to Florida, but was apprehended and returned to New York where he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape in the first degree and forcible compulsion in relation to four separate incidents involving four separate victims.

Prior to the appellant's release from prison in New York, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, alleging that the appellant was a sex offender requiring civil management.  After a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i).  Following a dispositional hearing, in an order dated January 23, 2024, the court determined that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, granted the petition, and directed that the appellant be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.  This appeal ensued.

“Mental Hygiene Law article 10 is designed to reduce the risks posed by, and to address the treatment needs of, sex offenders who suffer from mental abnormalities that predispose them to commit repeated sex crimes” (Matter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 NY3d 718, 726;  see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01[b] ).  A “ ‘mental abnormality’ means a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i] ).  The State bears the burden of proving a mental abnormality by clear and convincing evidence (see id. § 10.07[d] ).  The State “not only must ․ establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a predicate ‘condition, disease, or disorder,’ it must also link that ‘condition, disease, or disorder’ to a person's predisposition to commit conduct constituting a sex offense and to that person's ‘serious difficulty in controlling such conduct’ ” (Matter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 NY3d at 726, quoting Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i] ).

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the evidence at trial, considered in the light most favorable to the State, was legally sufficient to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 NY3d at 726;  Matter of State of New York v. Kerry K., 222 AD3d 655, 657–658).  Further, the Supreme Court's mental abnormality finding was warranted by the facts (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499;  Matter of State of New York v. Nathanael W., 234 AD3d 701, 702).  In particular, two expert witnesses testified that they had diagnosed the appellant with the conditions of sexual sadism disorder and other specified personality disorder traits, which, in combination, predisposed him to commit sex offenses and seriously impaired his ability to control such conduct (see Matter of State of New York v Allan A., 207 AD3d 635, 638;  Matter of State of New York v. Claude McC., 163 AD3d 686, 687).  In addition, the appellant's sex offense history and his failure to make gains in sex offender treatment support the court's finding (see Matter of State of New York v Kerry K., 222 AD3d at 659;  Matter of State of New York v. Allan A., 207 AD3d at 638).

At the dispositional hearing, the State demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement in a secure facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f];  Matter of State of New York v. Allan A., 207 AD3d at 638;  Matter of State of New York v. Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1101).  The conflicting expert opinions presented a credibility determination for resolution by the Supreme Court, and the court's credibility determination was supported by the record (see Matter of State of New York v Nathanael W., 234 AD3d at 703;  Matter of State of New York v. Ramel J., 223 AD3d 830, 832), and warranted by the facts (see Matter of State of New York v Geoffrey P., 196 AD3d 588, 590).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.

BARROS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court