Opinion
01-02-2015
In the Matter of the Application for Discharge of Amiyn ABDULLAH, Consecutive No. 21951, from Central New York Psychiatric Center Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Section 10.09, Petitioner–Appellant, v. STATE of New York, New York State Office of Mental Health and New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondents–Respondents.
Emmett J. Creahan, Director, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Utica ( Michael H. McCormick of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
Emmett J. Creahan, Director, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Utica ( Michael H. McCormick of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM: Petitioner was previously determined to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and was committed to a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq. ). Petitioner now appeals from an order, entered after an evidentiary hearing, continuing his confinement in a secure treatment facility (see § 10.09[h] ). We affirm. As a preliminary matter, we reject petitioner's contention that respondents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring continued confinement (see generally Matter of State of New York v. High, 83 A.D.3d 1403, 1403, 919 N.Y.S.2d 452, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 2473237 ). Supreme Court was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting expert testimony, and the record supports the court's determination to credit the opinion of respondents' expert over that of petitioner's expert (see Matter of Skinner v. State of New York, 108 A.D.3d 1134, 1135, 969 N.Y.S.2d 659 ).
We reject petitioner's contention that the court failed to state the facts it deemed essential in making its determination (see id. at 1134, 969 N.Y.S.2d 659 ; see also CPLR 4213[b] ). Although we agree with petitioner that more detailed decisions are warranted in order to facilitate appellate review, we conclude that the court's decision here, despite its brevity, complies with section 4213(b) (see Skinner, 108 A.D.3d at 1134, 969 N.Y.S.2d 659 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.