| Matter of Skinner v State of New York |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05171 [108 AD3d 1134] |
| July 5, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Timothy Skinner, Consecutive No. 126970,for Discharge from Central New York Psychiatric Center Pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw § 10.09, Appellant, v State of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondents-respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Joseph E. Fahey, A.J.),entered March 9, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Theorder, among other things, continued petitioner's commitment to a secure treatmentfacility.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts.
Memorandum: Petitioner was previously deemed to be a dangerous sex offenderrequiring civil confinement and was committed to a secure treatment facility (seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). Petitioner now appeals from anorder, entered after an evidentiary hearing, continuing his confinement in a securetreatment facility (see § 10.09 [h]). We affirm. We reject petitioner'scontention that Supreme Court failed to "state in its decision 'the facts it deem[ed]essential' to its determination" (Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1979],quoting CPLR 4213 [b]). "To comply with CPLR 4213 (b), a court need not set forthevidentiary facts, but it must state those ultimate facts essential to its decision"(Matter of Erika G., 289 AD2d 803, 804 [2001]). Here, the court's "decision,despite its brevity, fully complies" with section 4213 (b) (Vance Metal Fabricators vWidell & Son, 50 AD2d 1062, 1063 [1975]). Specifically, the decision sets forth thecourt's finding that petitioner continues to suffer from "a mental abnormality involvingsuch a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to controlbehavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if notconfined to a secure treatment facility" (§ 10.03 [e]).
We reject petitioner's further contention that respondents failed to prove by clear andconvincing evidence that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring continued confinement(see generally Matter of State ofNew York v High, 83 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d704 [2011]; [*2]Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 79 AD3d1687, 1688 [2010]). While there was conflicting expert testimony with respect to theneed for petitioner's continued confinement, "[t]he trier of fact [was] in the best positionto evaluate the weight and credibility of conflicting expert . . . testimony,"and here the record supports the court's determination to credit the opinion ofrespondents' expert over that of petitioner's expert (Matter of State of New York v Donald N., 63 AD3d 1391,1394 [2009]). Present—Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen,JJ.