State v. Spencer D.

• Decision Date: 06 June 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04350,96 A.D.3d 768,946 N.Y.S.2d 180
• Parties: In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent, v. SPENCER D. (Anonymous), appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 768

946 N.Y.S.2d 180

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04350

In the Matter of STATE of New York, respondent,

v.SPENCER D. (Anonymous), appellant.

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

June 6, 2012.

Robert Schuster, Mt. Kisco, N.Y. (John R. Lewis of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Spencer D., a sex offender allegedly suffering from a mental abnormality and requiring civil management, Spencer D. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), dated May 25, 2011, 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 a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment.

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

Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found that Spencer D. (hereinafter the appellant) suffers from a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) and, after a dispositional hearing, determined that he is a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the State of New York's petition for the civil management of the appellant, and directed that he be subject to a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment.

On appeal, the appellant contends that the term “mental abnormality” as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) is unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied to him. A “mental abnormality” is defined 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” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i] ).

“[C]ivil as well as penal statutes can be tested for vagueness under the due process clause” ( Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 58, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1, 340 N.E.2d 444;see Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 15 N.Y.3d 235, 256, 907 N.Y.S.2d 122, 933 N.E.2d 721,cert. denied sub nom. Tuck–It–Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 822, 178 L.Ed.2d 556;Goldberg v. Corcoran, 153 A.D.2d 113, 118–119, 549 N.Y.S.2d 503). “In addressing vagueness challenges, courts have developed a two-part test. The first essentially restates the classical notice doctrine: To ensure that no person is punished for conduct not reasonably understood to be prohibited, the court must determine whether the statute in question is sufficiently definite to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that [her or] his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute” ( People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 420, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–109, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222;People v. Nelson, 69 N.Y.2d 302, 307, 514 N.Y.S.2d 197, 506 N.E.2d 907;Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 141 A.D.2d 148, 163, 532 N.Y.S.2d 783,affd.,73 N.Y.2d 544, 542 N.Y.S.2d 139, 540 N.E.2d 215). “Second, the court must determine whether the enactment provides officials with clear standards for enforcement” ( People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d at 420, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28;see Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. at 109, 92 S.Ct. 2294;People v. Nelson, 69 N.Y.2d at 307, 514 N.Y.S.2d 197, 506 N.E.2d 907;Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 141 A.D.2d at 163, 532 N.Y.S.2d 783).

A statute may be challenged as unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied ( see People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d at 421, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28). A challenge to a statute as applied requires the court to consider whether the statute can be constitutionally applied to the party challenging it under the facts of the case ( id. at 421, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28). In contrast, “a facial challenge requires the court to examine the words of the statute on a cold page and without reference to the ... conduct [of the party challenging the statute]. In pursuing a facial challenge, the [party challenging the statute] must carry the heavy burden of showing that the statute is impermissibly vague in all of its applications” ( id. at 421, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted] ).

“Because facial challenges to statutes are generally disfavored and legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, a court's task when presented with both a facial and as-applied argument is first to decide whether the assailed statute is impermissibly vague as applied to the [party challenging it]” ( id. at 422, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28 [citations omitted] ). “If it is not and the statuteprovides the [party challenging the statute] with adequate notice and the [agency enforcing the statute] with clear criteria, that is the end of the matter” ( id. at 422, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28). “ ‘[T]he court will not strain to imagine marginal situations in which the application of the statute is not so clear’ ” ( id. at 422, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28, quoting People v. Nelson, 69 N.Y.2d at 308, 514 N.Y.S.2d 197, 506 N.E.2d 907;see People v. Shack, 86 N.Y.2d 529, 538, 634 N.Y.S.2d 660, 658 N.E.2d 706;Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 141 A.D.2d at 163, 532 N.Y.S.2d 783).

Here, the appellant argues that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) is unconstitutional as applied to him because the phrase “condition, disease or disorder” is undefined and the diagnosis made by the State's expert—paraphilia not otherwise specified (hereinafter NOS) (hebephilia)—is not listed as a specifically designated diagnosis in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (hereinafter DSM–IV). However, Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i) does not require a designated diagnosis under the DSM–IV for a finding of a mental abnormality ( cf.Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03[52] ). All that is required is a congenital or...