State v. Ted B.

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kerry K.

    222 A.D.3d 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The appellant contends that the court's conclusion was incorrect because the diagnoses of ASPD and other specified personality disorder were insufficient to establish a predicate condition (see e.g.Matter of State of New York v. Ronald S., 186 A.D.3d 1227, 1229, 129 N.Y.S.3d 486 ), and the diagnoses of psychopathy and sexual sadism disorder were not supported by the record. However, even assuming that a diagnosis of psychopathy was improper in light of the appellant's average score across two Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (hereinafter PCL–R) tests (seeMatter of State of New York v. Marcello A., 180 A.D.3d at 790–791, 118 N.Y.S.3d 688 ), the diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder, standing alone, was sufficient to constitute a predicate condition and was supported by the evidence (seeMatter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ). Contrary to the appellant's assertion with regard to that diagnosis, Thomassen adequately explained the basis of his opinion.

  2. State v. Ted B.

    77 Misc. 3d 788 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Thereafter, the Appellate Division, Second Department, by Decision and Order dated July 10, 2019, affirmed the trial court's finding with respect to mental abnormality but remitted the matter back to the trial court for the imposition of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). Specifically, the Appellate Division determined that the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Ted B. has an "inability" to control "sexual misconduct" ( Matter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 [2nd Dept., 2019] [emphasis added]). On September 30, 2019, in accordance with the Appellate Division's Order, this Court (Brown, J.) placed the respondent on SIST under the supervision of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).

  3. State v. Shannon C.

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

    The Supreme Court also properly determined after the dispositional hearing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant's level of dangerousness requires confinement rather than strict and intensive supervision (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ; Matter of State of New York v. Patrick F., 217 A.D.3d 870, 872, 191 N.Y.S.3d 705 ). The conflicting expert opinions regarding the appellant's level of dangerousness presented a credibility determination for resolution by the court and the court's credibility determination was supported by the record (seeMatter of State of New York v. Jermaine B., 191 A.D.3d 888, 889, 138 N.Y.S.3d 916 ; Matter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ).

  4. State v. Anthony A.

    219 A.D.3d 1524 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Additionally, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, as it was warranted by the facts (seeMatter of State of New York v. Timothy R., 214 A.D.3d 738, 739–740, 185 N.Y.S.3d 220 ; Matter of State of New York v. Christian R., 200 A.D.3d 1046, 1048, 161 N.Y.S.3d 211 ). The court's determination to credit the testimony of the State's expert witnesses is supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb it (seeMatter of State of New York v. Patrick F., 217 A.D.3d 870, 872, 191 N.Y.S.3d 705 ; Matter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ). The State also demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement in a secure treatment facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ; Matter of State of New York v. Benjamin M., 199 A.D.3d 690, 690–693, 155 N.Y.S.3d 598 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).

  5. State v. Patrick F.

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

    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 (seeMatter of State of New York v. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ). Moreover, the Supreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of the State's expert witness is supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb it (seeMatter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).

  6. Ruben M. v. State

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 7371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

    Rather, a sex offender may suffer from multiple illnesses, not to be viewed in isolation, that work in tandem with one another to predispose the offender to commit a sex offense (see generally Matter of State of New York v David D., 206 A.D.3d 481, 485 [1st Dept 2022]). Moreover, where experts conflict as to a specific diagnosis, a question of fact is created to be resolved by the factfinder (see generally Matter of State of New York v Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632 [2d Dept 2019]; Matter of State of New York v David B., 156 A.D.3d 793, 793 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904 [2018]). Any disagreement between the experts regarding petitioner's diagnoses was considered by the court, and the court's finding that petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality was consistent with a "fair interpretation of the evidence" (Matter of State of New York v Nervina, 120 A.D.3d 941, 943 [4th Dept 2014], affd 27 N.Y.3d 718 [2016], cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 574 [2016]; see Matter of Brandon D. v State of New York, 195 A.D.3d 1478, 1479-1480 [4th Dept 2021]).

  7. Ruben M. v. State

    211 A.D.3d 1590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Rather, a sex offender may suffer from multiple illnesses, not to be viewed in isolation, that work in tandem with one another to predispose the offender to commit a sex offense (see generallyMatter of State of New York v. David D. , 206 A.D.3d 481, 485, 169 N.Y.S.3d 312 [1st Dept. 2022] ). Moreover, where experts conflict as to a specific diagnosis, a question of fact is created to be resolved by the factfinder (see generallyMatter of State of New York v. Ted B. , 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 [2d Dept. 2019] ; Matter of State of New York v. David B. , 156 A.D.3d 793, 793, 67 N.Y.S.3d 650 [2d Dept. 2017], lv denied 31 N.Y.3d 904, 2018 WL 1596435 [2018] ). Any disagreement between the experts regarding petitioner's diagnoses was considered by the court, and the court's finding that petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality was consistent with a "fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Matter of State of New York v. Nervina , 120 A.D.3d 941, 943, 991 N.Y.S.2d 208 [4th Dept. 2014], affd 27 N.Y.3d 718, 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] ; seeMatter of Brandon D. v. State of New York , 195 A.D.3d 1478, 1479-1480, 147 N.Y.S.3d 306 [4th Dept. 2021] ).

  8. State v. Benjamin M.

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

    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 (see Matter of State of New York v Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119). Although the appellant's expert witness disagreed with some of these conclusions, the Supreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of the State's expert witnesses instead of the testimony of the appellant's expert witness is supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb it (see Matter of State of New York v Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630; Matter of State of New York v Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52). At the dispositional hearing, the State demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement in a secure facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f]; Matter of State of New York v Cleophus H., 139 A.D.3d 868; Matter of State of New York v Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52).

  9. State v. Benjamin M.

    199 A.D.3d 690 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    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 (seeMatter of State of New York v. Robert H., 192 A.D.3d at 1119, 141 N.Y.S.3d 355 ). Although the appellant's expert witness disagreed with some of these conclusions, the Supreme Court's determination to credit the testimony of the State's expert witnesses instead of the testimony of the appellant's expert witness is supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb it (seeMatter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). At the dispositional hearing, the State demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement in a secure facility (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07[f] ; Matter of State of New York v. Cleophus H., 139 A.D.3d 868, 31 N.Y.S.3d 548 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ).

  10. State v. Robert A.

    187 A.D.3d 1326 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 draws "a distinction between sex offenders who have difficulty controlling their sexual conduct and those who are unable to control it. The former are to be supervised and treated as outpatients and only the latter may be confined" ( Matter of State of New York v. Michael M., 24 N.Y.3d at 659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 830, 26 N.E.3d 769 [internal quotation marks omitted]; accordMatter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 [2019] ). As such, in the context of this revocation proceeding, Supreme Court had two dispositional alternatives: civilly confine respondent or return him to the community under SIST (seeMatter of State of New York v. Jamaal A., 167 A.D.3d 1526, 1526, 90 N.Y.S.3d 772 [2018], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 902, 2019 WL 1941485 [2019] ; Matter of State of New York v. David HH., 147 A.D.3d at 1233, 48 N.Y.S.3d 791 ).