| Matter of State of New York v Wayne J. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03545 [127 AD3d 1211] |
| April 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| In the Matter of State of New York,Respondent, v Wayne J., Appellant. |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavekand Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Wayne J., a sex offenderallegedly suffering from a mental abnormality and requiring civil management, appealsfrom an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), dated October 11,2013, which, upon a finding, upon consent, that he suffers from a mental abnormality asdefined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and a determination, uponconsent, that he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision, in effect,granted the petition and directed that he be subject to a regimen of strict and intensivesupervision and treatment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In May 2010, prior to the appellant's anticipated release from a correctional facility,the petitioner filed an order to show cause and petition pursuant to Mental Hygiene Lawarticle 10, alleging that the appellant is a sex offender requiring civil management. Aftera finding that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law§ 10.03 (i), the appellant consented to a determination that he is a sexoffender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (hereinafter SIST).After hearing arguments as to the regimen of SIST to be imposed, the Supreme Court, ineffect, granted the Mental Hygiene Law article 10 petition and imposed the regimen. Theappellant contends that the Supreme Court should not have accepted his consent to adetermination that he is a sex offender requiring SIST and instead should have conducteda full dispositional hearing.
Mental Hygiene Law article 10, the main component of the Sex OffenderManagement and Treatment Act, "establishes the standards and procedures governing thecivil management of sex offenders" (Governor's Program Bill Mem No. 8, Bill Jacket, L2007, ch 7 at 5; see Matter ofState of New York v Claude McC., 122 AD3d 65, 69 [2014]). Mental HygieneLaw article 10 provides that where, as here, it is determined that a person is a detainedsex offender who suffers from a mental abnormality, "the court shall consider whetherthe [person] is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement or a sex offenderrequiring [SIST]" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]). The statute furtherprovides that, at this phase of the proceeding, "[t]he parties may offer additionalevidence, [*2]and the court shall hear argument, as to thatissue" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f] [emphasis added]). Contrary to theappellant's contention, the statute does not mandate a dispositional hearing. Thus, it wasnot improper for the Supreme Court to accept the appellant's decision to not offeradditional evidence and to accept his consent to a determination that he is a sex offenderrequiring SIST (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; Matter of State of New York vJames Z., 97 AD3d 1046, 1047 [2012]). Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Maltese andDuffy, JJ., concur.