| Matter of State of New York v Chrisman |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05891 [75 AD3d 1057] |
| July 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v StevenChrisman, an Inmate in the Custody of New York State Department of Correctional Services,Appellant. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew B. Ayers of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.),entered December 15, 2008 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Theorder, inter alia, continued respondent's commitment to a secure treatment facility.
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 article10 that, inter alia, continued his commitment to a secure treatment facility based on a juryfinding that he is a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality that predisposes him tocommit further sex offenses. We reject respondent's contention that, because there were"conflicting expert opinions," petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence thatrespondent suffered from a mental abnormality (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[d]; Matter of State of New York vTimothy JJ., 70 AD3d 1138, 1140 [2010]; Matter of State of New York v Shawn X., 69 AD3d 165, 168[2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 702 [2010]). The jury verdict is entitled to great deferencebased on the jury's opportunity to evaluate the weight and credibility of conflicting experttestimony (see Matter of State of NewYork v Donald N., 63 AD3d 1391, 1394 [2009]).
Respondent failed to preserve for our review his further contention that Supreme Court erredin admitting in evidence various documentary exhibits, except insofar as he objected to theadmission in evidence of his criminal records from Florida (see generally CPLR5501; Palmer v CSX Transp., Inc. [appeal No. 2], 68 AD3d 1626, 1627-1628 [2009]).Even assuming, arguendo, that respondent's criminal records from Florida were not properlycertified, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the lack of certification is atmost a technical irregularity that may be disregarded (see CPLR 2001; Borchardt vNew York Life Ins. Co., 102 AD2d 465, 467 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 1000 [1984],rearg denied 64 NY2d 776 [1985]). Respondent contends that he was denied a fair trialbased on the misconduct of the Assistant Attorney General. Respondent failed to object to themajority of the instances of alleged misconduct at issue, and thus he failed to preserve his [*2]contention with respect to those instances for our review (see Short v Daloia, 70 AD3d 1384[2010]). With respect to the single instance of alleged misconduct that is preserved for ourreview, we conclude that the conduct of the Assistant Attorney General was not so egregious orprejudicial as to deny respondent his right to a fair trial (see Duncan v Mount St. Mary'sHosp. of Niagara Falls, 272 AD2d 862, 863 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 760 [2000]).
Respondent failed to preserve for our review his contention that the verdict sheet wasimproper (see Halbreich vBraunstein, 13 AD3d 1137 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 704 [2005]). In any event,that contention lacks merit inasmuch as respondent failed to demonstrate that the jury wasconfused by the verdict sheet (seegenerally Alvarado v Dillon, 67 AD3d 1214, 1215-1216 [2009]).Present—Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.