Opinion
2014-07-2
In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. HUMBERTO G. (Anonymous), appellant.
Michael D. Neville, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Arthur A. Baer and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu, Karen W. Lin, and Andrew W. Amend of counsel), for respondent.
Michael D. Neville, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Arthur A. Baer and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu, Karen W. Lin, and Andrew W. Amend of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Humberto G., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, Humberto G. appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), dated September 28, 2012, made after a hearing, and (2) an order of the same court dated October 10, 2012, which, upon a finding, made after a jury trial, that he 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 currently a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, 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 appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that he suffered from a “mental abnormality” as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) ( see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[d]; Matter of State of New York v. Donald DD., 107 A.D.3d 1062, 1063–1064, 967 N.Y.S.2d 186,lv. granted 21 N.Y.3d 866, 2013 WL 5180104;Matter of State of New York v. Kenneth T., 106 A.D.3d 829, 964 N.Y.S.2d 593,lv. granted 21 N.Y.3d 863, 2013 WL 4562831;Matter of State of New York v. Robert F., 101 A.D.3d 1133, 1137, 958 N.Y.S.2d 156;Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195;Matter of State of New York v. Derrick B., 68 A.D.3d 1124, 1127, 892 N.Y.S.2d 140;cf. Matter of State of New York v John S., –––N.Y.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.2d ––––, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03292, *16 [majority], *21, 2014 WL 1806920 [Smith, J., dissenting] [2014] ). Moreover, inasmuch as the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, it was not contrary to the weight of the evidence ( see Matter of State of New York v. Edison G., 107 A.D.3d 723, 724, 966 N.Y.S.2d 510;Matter of State of New York v. Nelson D., 105 A.D.3d 968, 968, 966 N.Y.S.2d 864).
In addition, the Supreme Court properly found, upon the clear and convincing evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing, that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement ( seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York v. Nelson D., 105 A.D.3d at 968, 966 N.Y.S.2d 864;Matter of State of New York v. Edison G., 107 A.D.3d at 724–725, 966 N.Y.S.2d 510).
The appellant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.