Opinion
2012-11-16
In the Matter of the STATE of New York, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Edward TREAT, Respondent–Appellant.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth DeV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (Elizabeth DeV. Moeller of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers of Counsel), for Petitioner–Respondent.
PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Respondent was previously deemed to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and was committed to a secure treatment facility ( seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). Respondent now appeals from an order, entered after an evidentiary hearing, determining that he should remain in confinement ( see§ 10.09[d] ). We affirm.
We reject the contention of respondent that Supreme Court's determination that he continues to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.09[h] ). Two expert reports admitted in evidence established that respondent continues to be a dangerous sex offender with a mental abnormality who should remain confined and, other than respondent's self-serving testimony at the hearing, there was no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, respondent did not preserve for our review his contention that good cause was not shown for the court's decision to allow the expert reports to be admitted in evidence without also requiring that the experts who generated those reports testify ( see generally § 10.08[g]; Matter of State of New York v. Reeve, 87 A.D.3d 1378, 1378, 929 N.Y.S.2d 899,lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 804, 2012 WL 87004;Matter of State of New York v. Muench, 85 A.D.3d 1581, 1582, 925 N.Y.S.2d 291), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention in the interest of justice ( cf. Muench, 85 A.D.3d at 1582, 925 N.Y.S.2d 291). Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case as a whole and at the time of the representation, we further conclude that respondent received effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;Matter of State of New York v. Campany, 77 A.D.3d 92, 100, 905 N.Y.S.2d 419,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 713, 2010 WL 4183541).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.