Opinion
2016–08096 Index No. 545/13
09-19-2018
In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. ANTHONY J. (Anonymous), appellant.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, N.Y. (Constantine Dellis on the brief), for appellant. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Langone, Garden City, N.Y. (Constantine Dellis on the brief), for appellant.
Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Anthony J. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen Ann Riviezzo, J.), dated June 24, 2016. The order, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that Anthony J. suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, granted the petition and directed that Anthony J. be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In December 2012, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (hereinafter SOMTA), for the civil management of the appellant. On a prior appeal, this Court, concluding that the appellant was a detained sex offender nearing an anticipated release (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05[b] ), reversed an order dated March 2, 2014, which had granted the appellant's motion to dismiss the petition, and upon reversal, reinstated the petition and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the petition (see Matter of State of New York v. Anthony J., 121 A.D.3d 697, 993 N.Y.S.2d 170 ). Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found that the appellant suffers from a mental abnormality as that term is defined in SOMTA. After a dispositional hearing, the court determined that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
We agree with the Supreme Court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant's level of dangerousness requires confinement rather than strict and intense supervision (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ; Matter of State of New York v. Lionel W., 155 A.D.3d 749, 750, 64 N.Y.S.3d 88 ; Matter of State of New York v. Robert M., 133 A.D.3d 670, 672, 19 N.Y.S.3d 82 ; Matter of State of New York v. Steven L., 66 A.D.3d 788, 789–790, 887 N.Y.S.2d 190 ; cf. Matter of State of New York v. Michael M., 24 N.Y.3d 649, 658–659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 830, 26 N.E.3d 769 ).
The defendant's contention that his due process rights were violated by the commencement of this Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding is without merit (see Matter of State of New York v. David B., 156 A.D.3d 793, 794, 67 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; cf. Matter of State of New York v. Floyd Y., 22 N.Y.3d 95, 104, 979 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2 N.E.3d 204 ; see generally Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 122 S.Ct. 867, 151 L.Ed.2d 856 ; Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 117 S.Ct. 2072, 138 L.Ed.2d 501 ; Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 ; Matter of State of New York v. Donald DD., 24 N.Y.3d 174, 189, 996 N.Y.S.2d 610, 21 N.E.3d 239 ; Matter of State of New York v. Daniel OO., 88 A.D.3d 212, 221, 928 N.Y.S.2d 787 ).
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.