| Matter of State of New York v John S. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01622 [104 AD3d 511] |
| March 14, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v John S., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Andrew W. Amend ofcounsel), for the State.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J.), entered on or aboutAugust 4, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict that respondent suffers from a mentalabnormality, determined that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiringconfinement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly ordered the unsealing of records related to three rapes and tworobberies for which respondent was indicted in 1968, although respondent's convictionof one count of rape and one count of robbery was ultimately overturned on the groundthat he was incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty (see Suggs v LaVallee, 570F2d 1092 [2d Cir 1978], cert denied 439 US 915 [1978]). Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.08 (c) provides, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law," theState is entitled to access to "all records and reports relating to the respondent'scommission or alleged commission of a sex offense" (emphasis added). Contrary torespondent's contention, this provision supersedes CPL 160.50, which requires that therecord of a criminal proceeding that terminated in favor of the accused be sealed (see Matter of State of New York vZimmer, 63 AD3d 1563 [4th Dept 2009]).
The court properly permitted the State's experts to rely on hearsay statements in theunsealed documents in forming their opinions and to testify as to the content of thosedocuments, subject to certain restrictions, on the ground that the out-of-court documentswere "of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable in forming a professional opinion"(see People v Goldstein, 6NY3d 119, 124 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert denied 547US 1159 [2006]). There is no basis for disturbing the court's determination that thedisclosed hearsay facts' probative value to the jury in evaluating the experts' opinionssubstantially outweighed their prejudicial effect (see id. at 126-127).
The jury's verdict that respondent suffers from a mental [*2]abnormality is supported by legally sufficient evidence(see People v Tejeda, 73 NY2d 958 [1989]) and is not against the weight of theevidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny,Freedman, Feinman and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 32 Misc 3d 1206(A), 2011NY Slip Op 51195(U).]