State v. Robert H.

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Patrick F.

    217 A.D.3d 870 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    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 in a close case that 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. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d 1117, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ). 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. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ).

  2. State v. Benjamin M.

    No. 2018-14795 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 3, 2021)

    This appeal ensued. 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 (see Matter of State of New York v Robert H., 192 A.D.3d 1117). 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 (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 743-745; Matter of State of New York v Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119).

  3. State v. Benjamin M.

    199 A.D.3d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    This appeal ensued. 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 (seeMatter of State of New York v. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d 1117, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ). 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. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ).

  4. State v. Benjamin M.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 5971 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    This appeal ensued. 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 (see Matter of State of New York v Robert H., 192 A.D.3d 1117). 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 (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 N.Y.3d 718, 743-745; Matter of State of New York v Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119).

  5. State v. Allan A.

    207 A.D.3d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    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 ).