In the Matter of State v. (anonymous)

• Decision Date: 28 June 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent,v.JOHN P. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

85 A.D.3d 1189
925 N.Y.S.2d 893
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05717

In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent,
v.
JOHN P. (Anonymous), appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

June 28, 2011.

Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Mineola, N.Y. (Lesley De Lia, Dennis B. Feld, and Lisa Volpe of counsel), for appellant.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Benjamin N. Gutman, Laura R. Johnson, and Sudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for respondent.

[85 A.D.3d 1189] In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of John P., an alleged sex offender allegedly suffering from a mental abnormality and requiring civil management, John P. appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), entered March 16, 2010, which, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he currently is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time he no longer requires confinement.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

John P. was a convicted recidivist sex offender. On November 19, 2008, prior to

[925 N.Y.S.2d 894]

his scheduled release from prison, the State commenced a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (hereinafter an article 10 proceeding), alleging that he suffered from a mental abnormality requiring civil commitment.

At a nonjury trial, John P.'s counsel sought to preclude testimony or evidence from Dr. Paul Etu, a licensed psychologist, on the ground that the examination was conducted in violation of John P.'s right to counsel. Dr. Etu had examined John P. on November 4, 2008, at the request of a case review team, to determine if he was suffering from a mental abnormality, and prior to the team's recommendation to the Attorney General that he commence an article 10 proceeding seeking to place John P. under civil management. The Supreme Court permitted the testimony of Dr. Etu, and found that John P. suffered from mental abnormalities requiring civil management. John P. now appeals.

[85 A.D.3d 1190] The Supreme Court properly denied John P.'s request to preclude the testimony and evidence. In an article 10...