Opinion
1407 CA 14-00654.
12-31-2015
In the Matter of STATE of New York, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Frank CONNOR, Respondent–Appellant.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Charles J. Greenberg, Amherst, for Respondent–Appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent appeals from an order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 determining, following a jury trial, that he is a detained sex offender who has a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) and determining, following a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement in a secure treatment facility. We reject respondent's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Here, petitioner's two expert psychologists testified that respondent suffered from a mental abnormality, and although respondent's expert testified to the contrary, “ ‘[t]he jury verdict is entitled to great deference based on the jury's opportunity to evaluate the weight and credibility of conflicting expert testimony’ ” (Matter of State of New York v. Gierszewski, 81 A.D.3d 1473, 1474, 916 N.Y.S.2d 729, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 2183880; see Matter of State of New York v. Parrott, 125 A.D.3d 1438, 1439, 2 N.Y.S.3d 711, lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618918). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “the evidence does not preponderate[ ] so greatly in [respondent's] favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Gierszewski, 81 A.D.3d at 1474, 916 N.Y.S.2d 729 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Contrary to respondent's further contention, we conclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the dispositional hearing that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see §§ 10.03[e]; 10.07[f] ). “Supreme Court, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting [psychological] testimony presented ..., and we see no basis to disturb its decision to credit the testimony of petitioner's expert over that of respondent's expert” (Matter of State of New York v. Gooding, 104 A.D.3d 1282, 1282, 961 N.Y.S.2d 683, lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 862, 2013 WL 4459826 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.