Opinion
2012-04-27
In the Matter of the STATE of New York, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Derrick HARLAND, Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered July 29, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility. Charles J. Greenberg, Buffalo, for respondent-appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered July 29, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility. Charles J. Greenberg, Buffalo, for respondent-appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility. Contrary to respondent's 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 “was ‘in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting psychiatric testimony presented’ ” ( Matter of State of New York v. Blair, 87 A.D.3d 1327, 1327, 929 N.Y.S.2d 818; see Matter of State of New York v. Richard VV., 74 A.D.3d 1402, 1404, 903 N.Y.S.2d 184; Matter of State of New York v. Timothy JJ., 70 A.D.3d 1138, 1144–1145, 895 N.Y.S.2d 568). We see no basis upon which to disturb the court's determination to credit the testimony of petitioner's expert over that of the expert who testified on behalf of respondent ( see Matter of State of New York v. Boutelle, 85 A.D.3d 1607, 1607, 925 N.Y.S.2d 299; see also Matter of State of New York v. Flagg [Appeal No. 2], 71 A.D.3d 1528, 1530, 898 N.Y.S.2d 747).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.