| Matter of State of New York v Carmelo M. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06581 [110 AD3d 818] |
| October 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v Carmelo M., Appellant. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu andPatrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil managementof Carmelo M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Carmelo M. appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), dated April 4, 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.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly allowed thepetitioner's expert to testify regarding the appellant's admission, as reported in a socialworker's notes contained in his Department of Correctional Services records, that he hadcommitted additional sexual offenses against children with which he had not beencharged, since the purpose of the testimony was to explain the basis for the expert'sopinion (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [b]; Matter of State of New York vAnonymous, 82 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Wilkes, 77 AD3d 1451,1453 [2010]). Further, the admission of the social worker's notes did not violate thesocial worker-patient privilege set forth under CPLR 4508, as Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.08 (c) requires the disclosure of communications that would ordinarily beprivileged under CPLR 4508 (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]; Matter of State of New York vFloyd Y., 102 AD3d 80, 88 [2012]).
The Assistant Attorney General's summation remarks, to the extent they wereimproper, were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have the effect of depriving theappellant of a fair trial (see Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82 AD3dat 1251; Short v Daloia, 70AD3d 1384, 1385 [2010]; Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906, 909 [2009];Ritz v Lee, 273 AD2d 291, 291 [2000]).
Further, the Supreme Court properly found, after the dispositional hearing, by clear[*2]and convincing evidence, that the appellant's level ofdangerousness requires that he be confined rather than being subject to strict and intensesupervision (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York vClarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777-778 [2011]; Matter of State of New York vAnonymous, 82 AD3d at 1252). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.