Opinion
2011-09-30
In the Matter of the STATE of New York, Petitioner–Respondent,v.Keith REEVE, Respondent–Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Brian F. DeJoseph, J.), entered January 22, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.Emmett J. Creahan, Director, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Utica (Janine E. Frank of Counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of Counsel), for petitioner-respondent.MEMORANDUM:
Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility. Contrary to respondent's contention, we conclude that petitioner met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality ( see Matter of State of New York v. Farnsworth, 75 A.D.3d 14, 17, 900 N.Y.S.2d 548, appeal dismissed 15 N.Y.3d 848, 909 N.Y.S.2d 20, 935 N.E.2d 812; see generally § 10.03[i] ). Petitioner also established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent has such an inability to control his behavior that he “is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined” (§ 10.07[f] ). Thus, Supreme Court's determination that respondent should be committed to a secure treatment facility is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally id.).
“Respondent's contention regarding the order issued following the probable cause hearing is not properly before us because no appeal lies from such an order” ( Matter of State of New York v. Stein, 85 A.D.3d 1646, 1648, 924 N.Y.S.2d 231; see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.13[b] ). Respondent's further contention regarding the standard of proof is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to raise it before the trial court ( see Matter of State of New York v. Gierszewski, 81 A.D.3d 1473, 916 N.Y.S.2d 729, lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 702, 2011 WL 2183880; Matter of State of New York v. Chrisman, 75 A.D.3d 1057, 905 N.Y.S.2d 414; cf. Matter of State of New York v. Rashid, 16 N.Y.3d 1, 13, 917 N.Y.S.2d 16, 942 N.E.2d 225). In any event, respondent's contention is not properly before us because it is raised for the first time in his reply brief ( see Matter of State of New York v. Zimmer [Appeal No. 4], 63 A.D.3d 1563, 880 N.Y.S.2d 813; see generally Turner v. Canale, 15 A.D.3d 960, 790 N.Y.S.2d 347, lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 799 N.Y.S.2d 773, 832 N.E.2d 1189).
We have considered respondent's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and GORSKI, JJ., concur.