State v. Patrick F.

• Docket Number: 2019-06293,Index No. 1487/17
• Decision Date: 21 June 2023
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 03354
• Parties: In the Matter of State of New York, respondent, v. Patrick F. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 03354

In the Matter of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Patrick F. (Anonymous), appellant.

No. 2019-06293, Index No. 1487/17

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

June 21, 2023

Craig S. Leeds, New York, NY, for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Judith N. Vale and Cleland B. Welton II of counsel), for respondent.

BETSY BARROS, J.P. VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON DEBORAH A. DOWLING BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Patrick F., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Patrick F. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dineen Ann Riviezzo, J.), dated April 18, 2019. The order, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial, that Patrick F. 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 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.

In 2013, the appellant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree for sexually abusing his son, beginning from when the child was 10 years of age. Prior to the appellant's scheduled release from prison, the State of New York commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for civil management. Following a nonjury trial on the issue of mental abnormality, the Supreme Court found that the State had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i). The court also determined, following a dispositional hearing, that the appellant was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law §§ 10.03[e]; 10.07[f]), in effect, granted the petition and directed that the appellant be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement. This appeal ensued.

In reviewing a finding made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts,...