Francisco R. v. State

• Decision Date: 17 March 2023
• Docket Number: 1036 CA 21-01697
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 01451
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF FRANCISCO R., FROM CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10.09, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 01451

IN THE MATTER OF FRANCISCO R., FROM CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER, PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10.09, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

No. 1036 CA 21-01697

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

March 17, 2023

ELIZABETH S. FORTINO, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENCE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE (MICHAEL H. MCCORMICK OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND OGDEN, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., A.J.), entered November 3, 2021. The order, inter alia, continued petitioner's placement in a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order, entered after an annual review hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d), determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under section 10.03 (e) and directing that he continue to be confined to a secure treatment facility (see § 10.09 [h]).

We reject petitioner's contention that the determination that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement is against the weight of the evidence. Pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, a person is classified as a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement if that person "suffer[s] from a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that the person is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility" (§ 10.03 [e]). The statute 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]). Here, we conclude that the evidence does not preponderate so greatly in petitioner's favor that the factfinder could not have reached its conclusion that petitioner continues to suffer from a mental abnormality on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v Connor, 134 A.D.3d 1577, 1578 [4th Dept...