State v. Steven JR M.

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kenneth

    190 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    As to OSPD (nonconsent), respondent failed, prior to trial, to seek to preclude any evidence related to said diagnosis or request a Frye hearing on that topic. Respondent further failed, at trial, to object to the challenged testimony or move for a directed verdict on this basis or any other (see CPLR 4401 ), and such issue "cannot now be resurrected by way of respondent's CPLR 4404 motion" ( Matter of State of New York v. Robert G., 179 A.D.3d 1164, 1166, 114 N.Y.S.3d 777 [2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 908, 2020 WL 3422464 [2020] ; see Matter ofState of New York v. David S., 136 A.D.3d 445, 446–447, 24 N.Y.S.3d 284 [2016] ). Also unpreserved is the argument regarding respondent's inability to control sex-offending behavior (seeMatter of State of New York v. Robert G., 179 A.D.3d at 1166–1167, 114 N.Y.S.3d 777 ; Matter of State of New York v. Steven M., 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 73 N.Y.S.3d 826 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 913, 2018 WL 3148917 [2018] ). Despite the lack of preservation for most aspects of the legal sufficiency argument

  2. In re Brian J.Z.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 5911 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

    We note at the outset that the mother contends that Family Court erred in relying on the testimony of the forensic psychologist who conducted virtual examinations of her because his opinion "was conclusory and lacked necessary information." The mother failed to object to the testimony of the psychologist on that ground, however, and thus failed to preserve her contention for our review (see Matter of Amyn C. [Chelsea K.], 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1421 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 911 [2018]; Matter of Jamiah Sharang C. [Kamila N.], 85 A.D.3d 453, 453 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 709 [2011]; see also Matter of Nadya S. [Brauna S.], 133 A.D.3d 1243, 1244 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 919 [2016]). Contrary to the mother's further contention, we conclude that petitioner established" 'by clear and convincing evidence that [the mother], by reason of mental illness, is presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child[ ]'" (Matter of Jason B. [Phyllis B.], 160 A.D.3d 1433, 1434 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 902 [2018]; see Matter of Jason B. [Gerald B.], 155 A.D.3d 1575, 1575 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 901 [2018]).

  3. State v. Shannon C.

    220 A.D.3d 712 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err by admitting into evidence during the trial the provisional diagnosis of frotteuristic disorder made by one of the State's experts, which was used by her in formulating her opinion that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality as defined by Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) (seeMatter of State of New York v. Steven M., 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 73 N.Y.S.3d 826 ; Matter of State of New York v. Ezikiel R., 147 A.D.3d 959, 959, 48 N.Y.S.3d 181 ; Matter of State of New York v. Derrick B., 68 A.D.3d 1124, 1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 140 ). The court also properly concluded that expert testimony on the condition of hypersexuality could be admitted into evidence without the necessity of a Frye hearing (seeFrye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 [D.C. Cir.] ).

  4. Brandon D. v. State

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 3774 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

    As a result, respondent's expert rendered a provisional diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder. Petitioner correctly concedes that a provisional diagnosis in combination with other diagnoses can constitute legally sufficient evidence of a mental abnormality (see Matter of State of New York v Steven M., 159 AD3d 1421, 1422 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 913 [2018]; Matter of State of New York v Derrick B., 68 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2d Dept 2009]), but he contends that, inasmuch as neither expert was able to conclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that he actually suffered from sexual sadism, there is insufficient evidence that he suffers from a mental abnormality. We reject that contention.

  5. Brandon D. v. State

    195 A.D.3d 1478 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    As a result, respondent's expert rendered a provisional diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder. Petitioner correctly concedes that a provisional diagnosis in combination with other diagnoses can constitute legally sufficient evidence of a mental abnormality (seeMatter of State of New York v. Steven M. , 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 73 N.Y.S.3d 826 [4th Dept. 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 913, 2018 WL 3148917 [2018] ; Matter of State of New York v. Derrick B. , 68 A.D.3d 1124, 1126, 892 N.Y.S.2d 140 [2d Dept. 2009] ), but he contends that, inasmuch as neither expert was able to conclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that he actually suffered from sexual sadism, there is insufficient evidence that he suffers from a mental abnormality. We reject that contention.

  6. In re Application of Discharge of Brandon D.

    No. 2021-03774 (N.Y. App. Div. Jun. 11, 2021)

    As a result, respondent's expert rendered a provisional diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder. Petitioner correctly concedes that a provisional diagnosis in combination with other diagnoses can constitute legally sufficient evidence of a mental abnormality (see Matter of State of New York v Steven M., 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1422 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 913 [2018]; Matter of State of New York v Derrick B., 68 A.D.3d 1124, 1126 [2d Dept 2009]), but he contends that, inasmuch as neither expert was able to conclude to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that he actually suffered from sexual sadism, there is insufficient evidence that he suffers from a mental abnormality. We reject that contention.

  7. State v. Robert G.

    179 A.D.3d 1164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Respondent also challenges whether the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish that he had serious difficulty in controlling his sexual offending behavior. However, this argument is also unpreserved as he failed to move, at trial, for a directed verdict under CPLR 4401 or otherwise challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on that ground (seeMatter of State of New York v. Steven M. , 159 A.D.3d 1421, 1422, 73 N.Y.S.3d 826 [2018], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 913, 2018 WL 3148917 [2018] ; Matter of State of New York v. David S. , 136 A.D.3d at 447, 24 N.Y.S.3d 284 ). Respondent next challenges Supreme Court's denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss the petition inasmuch as his 1997 plea agreement is a legal and binding contract – one that entitled him to specific performance.