| Matter of State of New York v Jemal M. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00795 [91 AD3d 961] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v JemalM., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecelia C. Chang and DavidLawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management ofJemal M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Jemal M. appeals from anamended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), entered January 11,2011, which, upon a jury verdict finding that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined inMental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and a determination, made after a dispositional hearing,that he currently is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted thepetition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, andcontrol until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
Ordered that the amended order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict since there was a valid line ofreasoning by which the jury concluded that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality, asthat term is defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) (see Matter of State of New York vAnonymous, 82 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Derrick B., 68 AD3d 1124, 1126[2009]). Moreover, the verdict that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality wassupported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of theevidence (see Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82 AD3d at 1251; Matter of State of New York v AndreL., 84 AD3d 1248, 1249-1250 [2011]).
Additionally, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court's determination thatthe abnormality from which the appellant suffers involves such a strong predisposition to commitsex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the appellant is likely to be a dangerto others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility (seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82AD3d at 1252). Accordingly, upon that finding, the Supreme Court properly determined that theappellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.03 [e]; § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82AD3d at 1252). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.