| Matter of State of New York v Edison G. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04010 [107 AD3d 723] |
| June 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v Edison G., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecelia C. Chang andSudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil managementof Edison G., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Edison G. appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), dated May 1, 2012,which, upon a finding, made after a jury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormalityas defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon a determination, madeafter a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring civilconfinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a securetreatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requiresconfinement.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In 1995 the appellant was convicted of one count of sodomy in the first degree, uponhis plea of guilty, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 to 12years. The conviction arose from incidents in 1994 in which the appellant anally rapedand sodomized a 13-year-old boy and sexually abused a 9-year-old boy. These incidentstook place while the appellant was serving a sentence of probation for his conviction ofendangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, which arose from an incidentin which the appellant anally raped a 14-year-old boy.
In January 2008, prior to the appellant's release from prison, the State commencedthis sex offender civil management proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article10. The Supreme Court conducted a jury trial, and at the conclusion of the trial the juryfound that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality that predisposed him tocommit sex offenses and caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his criminalsexual conduct. Following a dispositional hearing, the Supreme Court determined thatthe appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, and committed himto a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he nolonger requires confinement.[*2]
"[A] jury verdict may be set aside as against theweight of the evidence only when the evidence preponderates so greatly in the movant'sfavor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair interpretation of theevidence" (Matter of State ofNew York v Andre L., 84 AD3d 1248, 1249-1250 [2011] [internal quotationmarks omitted]; see Matter ofState of New York v Derrick B., 68 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2009]). Notably, "[a]jury's determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses are 'entitled to great deferencegiven the jury's opportunity to evaluate the weight and credibility of conflicting experttestimony' " (Matter of State of New York v Andre L., 84 AD3d at 1250, quotingMatter of State of New York vShawn X., 69 AD3d 165, 168 [2009]; see Matter of State of New York v Timothy JJ., 70 AD3d1138, 1142 [2010]). Notwithstanding the expert testimony presented by theappellant, which conflicted with the expert testimony presented by the petitioner, thejury's verdict that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality that predisposed himto commit sex offenses and caused him to have serious difficulty controlling his criminalsexual conduct was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see Matter ofState of New York v Andre L., 84 AD3d at 1250; Matter of State of New York vTimothy JJ., 70 AD3d at 1142; Matter of State of New York v Shawn X., 69AD3d at 169; Matter of State of New York v Derrick B., 68 AD3d at 1126).
The Supreme Court properly found, after the dispositional hearing, by clear andconvincing evidence, that the appellant's level of dangerousness requires that he beconfined rather than be subject to strict and intense supervision (see MentalHygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York v Andre L., 84AD3d at 1251; Matter of Stateof New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 778 [2011]; Matter of State of New York vSteven L., 66 AD3d 788, 789-790 [2009]).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Chambers,Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.