| Matter of State of New York v Terry P. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05914 [109 AD3d 934] |
| September 18, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v Terry P., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu andValerie Figueredo of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil managementof Terry P., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Terry P. appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated March 13, 2012,which, upon a finding that he suffers from a "mental abnormality" as defined in MentalHygiene Law § 10.03 (i), made after a nonjury trial, and upon a determination,made after a dispositional hearing, that he is currently a dangerous sex offender requiringconfinement, granted the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental HygieneLaw article 10 seeking civil management of the appellant. Following a nonjury trial, theSupreme Court found that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality within themeaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i). In addition, after a dispositionalhearing, the Supreme Court determined that the appellant is a dangerous sex offenderrequiring confinement.
The Supreme Court's determination that the State demonstrated, by clear andconvincing evidence, that the appellant suffers from a "mental abnormality" within themeaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) was warranted by the facts (see Matter of State of New York vKenneth T., 106 AD3d 829 [2013], lv granted 21 NY3d 863 [2013]; Matter of State of New York vRobert B., 106 AD3d 828 [2013]).
In addition, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court's finding thatthe appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Matter of State of New York vKenneth T., 106 AD3d 829 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Robert B., 106 AD3d 828[2013]; Matter of State of NewYork v Brusso, 105 AD3d 1435 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Alfredo M., 96 AD3d 1068[2012]; Matter of State of NewYork v Jemal M., 91 AD3d 961 [2012]). Angiolillo, J.P., Chambers, Roman andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.