| Matter of State of New York v Peter Y. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07007 [99 AD3d 1059] |
| October 18, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Y.,Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone Jr., J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered May 26,2011 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10,found respondent to be a dangerous sex offender and confined him to a secure treatment facility.
Respondent was sentenced to consecutive periods of imprisonment upon his convictions ofuse of a child in a sexual performance and sodomy. In February 2009, when respondent wasscheduled to be released from the correctional facility in which he had been confined, petitionercommenced this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding seeking, among other things, ajudgment that respondent is a dangerous sex offender who requires civil management. In April2011, following a nonjury trial at which respondent chose not to appear or present evidence,Supreme Court found that respondent is a detained sex offender with a mental abnormality(see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03 [g], [i]; 10.07 [a]). Thereafter the courtdetermined that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement and ordered him tobe committed to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [e]).Respondent appeals.
Initially, the record belies respondent's assertion that petitioner failed to establish by clearand convincing evidence that he suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of theMental Hygiene Law (see Matter ofState of New York v Kenneth BB., 93 AD3d 900, 901-[*2]902 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Shawn X., 69 AD3d 165, 169-170[2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 702 [2010]). At the hearing, petitioner presented the opinionof a psychologist who concluded, after personally evaluating respondent and reviewing hisrecords, that respondent suffered from a mental abnormality. Specifically, the psychologistdiagnosed respondent with pedophilia (nonexclusive type), which he stated is a sexual disordercharacterized by "intense sexual arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors . . . withprepubescent children," and paraphilia not otherwise specified (hereinafter NOS) nonexclusivetype, which he explained is generally a sexual disorder involving similar urges and behaviors aspedophilia, except it may involve non-humans, sadomasochism or other deviant sexualbehaviors. He also diagnosed respondent with a type of paraphilia called urophilia (sexualarousal from urine) and a paraphilia NOS called telephone scatologia (sexual arousal frommaking obscene phone calls). The psychologist opined that respondent's behaviors met thecriteria for each of those disorders. With respect to pedophilia, respondent had two felonyconvictions for incidents involving sexual contact with two boys, aged 11 and 12 at the time ofthe offense, and respondent had recurrent sexual contact with a young girl, beginning when shewas eight years old. With respect to paraphilia NOS, respondent had exhibited a "wide range ofsexual interests," including beastiality, exhibitionism, bondage and sadomasochism. With respectto urophilia, respondent had asked a 12-year-old female to urinate into a cup, ejaculated into thatcup and then drank the mixture, and, with respect to telephone scatologia, respondent had alengthy history of making obscene phone calls to women, which caused him to have multiplecriminal convictions for aggravated harassment. According to the psychologist, respondent'sdisorders predispose him to committing sex offenses because he is unable to control his sexualurges and behaviors, is mentally preoccupied with sex and is sexually compulsive andhypersexual—all of which also increase his likelihood of reoffending.
The psychologist also administered a diagnostic evaluation designed to predict anindividual's risk of committing future sex offenses, and testified that respondent scored in themoderate to high risk range. A second psychologist reported that respondent scored in the highrisk range. According to the expert evidence, respondent's history of unstable interpersonalrelationships, his refusal to comply with and complete sex offender treatment, and his recklessand remorseless personality—combined with his demonstrated history of being unable tocontrol his sexual urges, impulses and behaviors—render respondent a danger to others ifhe is released into the community. All of this evidence provides clear and convincing evidence tosupport Supreme Court's determination that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiringconfinement (see Matter of State of NewYork v Walter W., 94 AD3d 1177, 1178-1179 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 810[2012]; Matter of State of New York vRichard VV., 74 AD3d 1402, 1404-1405 [2010]).
To the extent not specifically addressed, respondent's remaining contentions have beenconsidered and found to be unpersuasive.
Mercure, J.P., Rose, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, withoutcosts.