State v. Carl S.

• Decision Date: 04 February 2015
• Parties: In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. CARL S. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

125 A.D.3d 670
6 N.Y.S.3d 63
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 00893

In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent
v.
CARL S. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

Feb. 4, 2015.

6 N.Y.S.3d 64

Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Mark H. Shawhan of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Opinion

125 A.D.3d 671

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, Carl S., a convicted sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), dated February 10, 2012, which, upon a finding, made after a jury 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, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

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

The appellant's contention that the admission of hearsay basis evidence through the testimony of the petitioner's experts violated his right to due process is unpreserved for appellate review (see Matter of State of New York v. Castleberry, 120 A.D.3d 1535, 1535, 992 N.Y.S.2d 589 ; Matter of State of New York v. Lonard ZZ., 100 A.D.3d 1279, 1280, 954 N.Y.S.2d 675 ; Matter of State of New York v. Gary M., 94 A.D.3d 521, 521, 942 N.Y.S.2d 483 ; Matter of State of New York v. Wilkes, 77 A.D.3d 1451, 1452, 907 N.Y.S.2d 903 ). In any event, the limited testimony regarding a prior charged sex offense, which did not result in an acquittal or a conviction, did not violate his right to due process (see Matter of State of New York v. John S., 23 N.Y.3d 326, 331, 991 N.Y.S.2d 532, 15 N.E.3d 287 ; Matter of State of New York v. Floyd Y., 22 N.Y.3d 95, 110, 979 N.Y.S.2d 240, 2 N.E.3d 204 ). The petitioner's experts also were properly permitted to testify regarding certain information contained in records describing the appellant's criminal, psychiatric, and disciplinary history, since the purpose of the testimony was to explain the bases for the experts' opinions (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08[b] ; Matter of State of New York v. Robert F., 101 A.D.3d 1133, 1135, 958 N.Y.S.2d 156 ; Matter of State of New York v. Anonymous, 82 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 920 N.Y.S.2d 195 ; Matter of State of New York v. Wilkes, 77 A.D.3d at 1453, 907 N.Y.S.2d 903 ).

Contrary to the...