Opinion
535 CA 19-00751
06-12-2020
In the Matter of the Application of STATE of New York, Petitioner-Respondent, v. ORLANDO T., Respondent-Appellant, for Civil Management Pursuant to Article 10 of the Mental Hygiene Law.
SARAH M. FALLON, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE (EMILY M. NORTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
SARAH M. FALLON, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE (EMILY M. NORTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FREDERICK A. BRODIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 determining, following a nonjury trial, that he is a detained sex offender who has a mental abnormality (see §§ 10.03 [g], [i]; 10.07 [d] ) and determining, following a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement in a secure treatment facility (see §§ 10.03 [e]; 10.07 [f] ). We affirm.
Contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that Supreme Court's determination that he suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of the statute is not against the weight of the evidence. Here, "the evidence presented by respondent that conflicted with that presented by petitioner merely raised a credibility issue for the court to resolve, and its determination is entitled to great deference given its ‘opportunity to evaluate [first-hand] the weight and credibility of [the] conflicting expert [opinions]’ " ( Matter of State of New York v. Stein , 85 A.D.3d 1646, 1647, 924 N.Y.S.2d 231 [4th Dept. 2011], affd 20 N.Y.3d 99, 956 N.Y.S.2d 462, 980 N.E.2d 510 [2012], cert denied 568 U.S. 1216, 133 S.Ct. 1500, 185 L.Ed.2d 556 [2013] ). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate so greatly in respondent's favor that the court could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see id. ; see also Matter of State of New York v. Trombley , 98 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 951 N.Y.S.2d 782 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 856, 959 N.Y.S.2d 692, 983 N.E.2d 771 [2013] ; Matter of State of New York v. Timothy EE. , 97 A.D.3d 996, 996-998, 949 N.Y.S.2d 232 [3d Dept. 2012] ). Contrary to respondent's further contention, we conclude that the court's determination that he requires confinement is not against the weight of the evidence. Here, "[t]he court was ‘in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting [expert] testimony presented’ " ( Matter of State of New York v. Parrott , 125 A.D.3d 1438, 1439, 2 N.Y.S.3d 711 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 911, 2015 WL 3618918 [2015] ), and we see no reason to disturb the court's decision to credit the testimony of petitioner's expert (see Trombley , 98 A.D.3d at 1301, 951 N.Y.S.2d 782 ).