| Matter of State of New York v Robert B. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03335 [106 AD3d 828] |
| May 8, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v Robert B., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavekand Leslie B. Dubeck of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil managementof Robert B., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Robert B. appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), dated August 1,2011, which, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that he suffers from a mentalabnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon adetermination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is currently a dangerous sexoffender requiring civil confinement, granted the petition and directed that he becommitted to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time ashe no longer requires confinement.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw article 10, known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act, seeking thecivil management of the appellant, who was convicted in 1984 of several crimes arisingfrom violent sexual assaults and harassing phone calls that took place over a period ofapproximately two years. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found that theappellant suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.03 (i). After a dispositional hearing, the Supreme Court also determined thatthe appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement.
"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the AppellateDivision is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it findswarranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had theadvantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" (Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776,777 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town ofBedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098,1100 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court's finding that the State established, by clear andconvincing evidence, that the appellant suffers from a "mental abnormality," as that termis defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), was warranted by the facts (see Matter of State [*2]of New York v Spencer D., 96 AD3d 768, 771[2012]; Matter of State of NewYork v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 807 [2011]; Matter of State of NewYork v Leon F., 84 AD3d at 1100-1101; Matter of State of New York v ClarenceD., 82 AD3d at 777).
Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court'sdetermination that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement in asecure facility (see Matter ofState of New York v Alfredo M., 96 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2012]; Matter of State of New York vJemal M., 91 AD3d 961, 962 [2012]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.