Opinion
2013-02-6
In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. S. MC. (Anonymous), appellant.
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Lesley M. DeLia, Ana Vuk–Pavlovic, and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Brian A. Sutherland of counsel), for respondent.
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Lesley M. DeLia, Ana Vuk–Pavlovic, and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Brian A. Sutherland of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of S. Mc., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, S. Mc. appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), dated April 18, 2011, made after a hearing, and (2) an order of the same court dated April 20, 2011, which, upon a determination that he is a “detained sex offender” as a matter of law, made upon a finding, after a jury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see Schicchi v. J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509, 472 N.Y.S.2d 718); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant's contention that he was entitled to a jury determination of the issue of whether he is a “detained sex offender” is without merit ( see Matter of State of New York v. Geoffrey P., 100 A.D.3d 911, 954 N.Y.S.2d 601). Additionally, the Supreme Court's finding that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is not against the weight of the evidence ( seeMental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v. Donald N., 63 A.D.3d 1391, 1394–1395, 881 N.Y.S.2d 542).
The appellant's remaining contention is without merit.