| Matter of State of New York v Brusso |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02933 [105 AD3d 1435] |
| April 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v DonaldBrusso, Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B. Levine of counsel), forpetitioner-respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas M. VanStrydonck, J.), entered November 2, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw article 10. The order, among other things, committed respondent to a securetreatment facility.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangeroussex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 andcommitting him to a secure treatment facility. Contrary to respondent's contention, weconclude that petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence at the dispositionalhearing that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see§§ 10.03 [e]; 10.07 [f]). Supreme Court, as the trier of fact, was in the bestposition to evaluate the credibility of the testimony presented and the weight to beaccorded such testimony, and we discern no basis to disturb the court's determination (see generally Matter of State ofNew York v Blair, 87 AD3d 1327, 1327 [2011]; Matter of State of New York vBoutelle, 85 AD3d 1607, 1607 [2011]). We further reject respondent'scontention that he was denied due process because the court did not set forth detailedfindings of fact in support of its decision. There is no such requirement in MentalHygiene Law article 10 and, in any event, we conclude that the court's bench decisionadequately sets forth the basis for the court's decision. Present—Scudder, P.J.,Smith, Centra, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.