It has since been held that OSPD (nonconsent) and PNOS (nonconsent) are not generally accepted in the psychiatric and psychological communities and, thus, should not be considered in determining whether a detained sex offender suffers from a mental abnormality (seeMatter of State of New York v. Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 690, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913, 2020 WL 5176148 [2020] ; Matter of State of New York v. Richard S., 158 A.D.3d 710, 712, 70 N.Y.S.3d 562 [2018] ).
New York courts permit expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures only after the principle, procedure, or theory has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific field (seePeople v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 422, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97, 633 N.E.2d 451 ; Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 ). Under the Frye standard, the burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony (seeMatter of State of New York v. Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 689, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 ; Matter of State of New York v. Richard S., 158 A.D.3d 710, 712, 70 N.Y.S.3d 562 ). The test of reliability is "not whether a particular procedure is unanimously indorsed by the scientific community, but whether it is generally accept[ed] as reliable" ( People v. Middleton, 54 N.Y.2d 42, 49, 444 N.Y.S.2d 581, 429 N.E.2d 100 ).
The Mental Hygiene Law defines a mental abnormality as "a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct" (§ 10.03 [i]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (seeMatter of State of New York v. John S. , 23 N.Y.3d 326, 348, 991 N.Y.S.2d 532, 15 N.E.3d 287 [2014], rearg denied 24 N.Y.3d 933, 993 N.Y.S.2d 544, 17 N.E.3d 1141 [2014] ), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence " ‘the predisposition prong of the mental abnormality test’ " ( Matter of State of New York v. Anthony B. , 180 A.D.3d 688, 691, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913, 2020 WL 5176148 [2020] ; seeMatter of Edward T. v. State of New York , 185 A.D.3d 1423, 1424, 128 N.Y.S.3d 117 [4th Dept. 2020] ). Respondent's expert diagnosed petitioner with pedophilic disorder and other specified personality disorder with antisocial features, which, when viewed in combination, predispose him to commit sex offenses and were sufficiently connected to his sex offending behavior (seeMatter of Charles B. v. State of New York , 192 A.D.3d 1583, 1585, 144 N.Y.S.3d 504 [4th Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 913, 2021 WL 5370871 [2021] ).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326, 348 [2014], rearg denied 24 N.Y.3d 933 [2014]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence" 'the predisposition prong of the mental abnormality test'" (Matter of State of New York v Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 691 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913 [2020]; see Matter of Edward T. v State of New York, 185 A.D.3d 1423, 1424 [4th Dept 2020]). Respondent's expert diagnosed petitioner with pedophilic disorder and other specified personality disorder with antisocial features, which, when viewed in combination, predispose him to commit sex offenses and were sufficiently connected to his sex offending behavior (see Matter of Charles B. v State of New York, 192 A.D.3d 1583, 1585 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 913 [2021]).
The experts were properly permitted to render an opinion on this issue based on hearsay basis evidence of the appellant's admissions (seeMatter of State of New York v. Floyd Y., 22 N.Y.3d at 109, 979 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2 N.E.3d 204 ). The State presented clear and convincing evidence that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality, as it proved that he suffers from several predicate disorders and linked those disorders, in combination, to his predisposition to commit conduct constituting a sex offense (seeMatter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 743–745, 37 N.Y.S.3d 765, 59 N.E.3d 500 ; Matter of State of New York v. Benjamin M., 199 A.D.3d at 691, 155 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of State of New York v. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d 1117, 1118–1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ; Matter of State of New York v. Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 690, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 ). Further, the State demonstrated that the appellant had serious difficulty in controlling his sexual conduct based upon the interaction of these disorders and other factors, including his regression during sex offender treatment, his repeated violations of parole soon after being released, and his commission of a prison disciplinary infraction involving the rape of another inmate (seeMatter of State of New York v. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ; Matter of State of New York v. Claude McC., 163 A.D.3d 686, 687, 81 N.Y.S.3d 133 ).
Considered in the light most favorable to the State (see Matter ofState of New York v. Floyd Y., 30 N.Y.3d 963, 964, 65 N.Y.S.3d 111, 87 N.E.3d 143 ; Matter of State of New York v. John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326, 348, 991 N.Y.S.2d 532, 15 N.E.3d 287 ), the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to establish that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i). The State presented clear and convincing evidence that the appellant has "a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects [his] emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity" in a manner that predisposes him to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense, and that he has serious difficulty in controlling such conduct ( Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i] ; see Matter ofState of New York v. Floyd Y., 30 N.Y.3d at 965, 65 N.Y.S.3d 111, 87 N.E.3d 143 ; Matter of State of New York v. Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 690–691, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 ). The appellant's contention that the Supreme Court's determination was contrary to the weight of the evidence is without merit.
Respondent's expert further linked those diagnoses to petitioner's predisposition to engage in conduct constituting the commission of sex offenses (seeMatter of State of New York v. Dennis K. , 27 N.Y.3d 718, 744, 37 N.Y.S.3d 765, 59 N.E.3d 500 [2016], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 579, 196 L.Ed.2d 452 [2016] ). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (seeMatter of State of New York v. John S. , 23 N.Y.3d 326, 348, 991 N.Y.S.2d 532, 15 N.E.3d 287 [2014] ), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence " ‘the predisposition prong of the mental abnormality test’ " ( Matter of State of New York v. Anthony B. , 180 A.D.3d 688, 691, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 [2d Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913, 2020 WL 5176148 [2020] ; see generallyMatter of Vega v. State of New York , 140 A.D.3d 1608, 1608-1609, 34 N.Y.S.3d 810 [4th Dept. 2016] ). We reject petitioner's further contention that Supreme Court's determination that he suffers from a mental abnormality is against the weight of the evidence.
Respondent's expert further linked those diagnoses to petitioner's predisposition to engage in conduct constituting the commission of sex offenses (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 744 [2016], cert denied U.S. &mdash, 137 S.Ct. 579 [2016]). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326, 348 [2014]), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence" 'the predisposition prong of the mental abnormality test'" (Matter of State of New York v Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 691 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 913 [2020]; see generally Matter of Vega v State of New York, 140 A.D.3d 1608, 1608-1609 [4th Dept 2016]). We reject petitioner's further contention that Supreme Court's determination that he suffers from a mental abnormality is against the weight of the evidence.
Respondent's expert further linked those diagnoses to petitioner's predisposition to engage in conduct constituting the commission of sex offenses (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 NY3d 718, 744 [2016], cert denied — US —, 137 S Ct 579 [2016]). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent (see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 348 [2014]), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence " 'the predisposition prong of the mental abnormality test' " (Matter of State of New York v Anthony B., 180 AD3d 688, 691 [2d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 913 [2020]; see generally Matter of Vega v State of New York, 140 AD3d 1608, 1608-1609 [4th Dept 2016]). We reject petitioner's further contention that Supreme Court's determination that he suffers from a mental abnormality is against the weight of the evidence.
In reviewing a finding made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (seeNorthern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809 ; Matter of State of New York v. Claude McC., 163 A.D.3d 686, 81 N.Y.S.3d 133 ). Here, contrary to the appellant's contention, the State presented clear and convincing evidence that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality, as it proved that he suffered from several predicate disorders and linked those disorders, in combination, to his predisposition to commit conduct constituting a sex offense (seeMatter of State of New York v. Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 743–745, 37 N.Y.S.3d 765, 59 N.E.3d 500 ; Matter of State of New York v. Anthony B., 180 A.D.3d 688, 690–691, 118 N.Y.S.3d 230 ). Further, the State demonstrated that the appellant had serious difficulty in controlling his sexual conduct based upon the interaction of these disorders and other factors, including, among other things, his failure to make meaningful progress in treatment and his commission of prison disciplinary infractions involving lewd behavior and threatening female staff members (seeMatter of State of New York v. Claude McC., 163 A.D.3d at 687, 81 N.Y.S.3d 133 ).