State v. Ted B.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 1981/10,2018–02766 |
| Citation | 174 A.D.3d 630,103 N.Y.S.3d 141 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE of New York, Respondent, v. TED B. (Anonymous), Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Garden City, N.Y. (Michael D. Neville, Timothy M. Riselvato, and Dennis B. Feld of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Andrew W. Amend and Amit R. Vora of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the determination that Ted B. is a dangerous sexual offender requiring civil confinement is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the determination and imposition of a regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment in accordance with Mental Hygiene Law § 10.11.
In 1993, the appellant was convicted of a number of felony offenses, including five counts of rape in the first degree, five counts of sodomy (now criminal sexual act) in the first degree, and one count of sexual abuse in the first degree, and was sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate term of 13 to 26 years of imprisonment. Prior to the appellant's scheduled discharge date, the State of New York commenced this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, alleging that he was a sex offender requiring civil management. A nonjury trial was held, after which the Supreme Court found that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03(i). Following a dispositional hearing, the court determined that he was a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement. He appealed from the order making that determination, and this Court found, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence to determine that the appellant had validly waived his right to a jury trial. Accordingly, this Court reversed the order appealed from and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial on the issue of mental abnormality and, if necessary, a new dispositional hearing (see Matter of State of New York v. Ted B. , 132 A.D.3d 28, 15 N.Y.S.3d 366 ).
Upon remittitur, the appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the record, and the Supreme Court conducted a new nonjury trial on the issue of mental abnormality and again found that the appellant suffered from a mental abnormality and was a detained sex offender requiring civil management. The court then accepted additional evidentiary submissions from the parties, heard oral argument at the dispositional hearing, and determined that the appellant "is a dangerous sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality involving such a strong pre-disposition to commit sex offenses and such an inability to control behavior, that he is likely to be a danger to others and is likely to commit sex offenses, if not confined to a secure treatment facility." The court granted the petition and directed that the appellant be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.
Initially, we reject the appellant's contention that the evidence presented by the State was legally insufficient to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he suffers from a mental abnormality, or that the Supreme Court's determination in that regard was against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v. Kerry K. , 157 A.D.3d 172, 185, 67 N.Y.S.3d 227 ; Matter of State of New York v. David B. , 156 A.D.3d 793, 793, 67 N.Y.S.3d 650 ; Matter of State of New York v. Ted B. , 132 A.D.3d at 31, 15 N.Y.S.3d 366 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L. , 120 A.D.3d 52, 59–60, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). The conflicting opinions of the State's and the appellant's expert witnesses regarding the appellant's diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder presented a credibility question (see Matter of State of New York v. David B. , 156 A.D.3d at 793, 67 N.Y.S.3d 650 ). The court's determination to credit the testimony of the State's expert witness is supported by the record, and there is no basis for disturbing it.
However, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sands v. Sands
..., 78 N.Y.2d at 183, 573 N.Y.S.2d 36, 577 N.E.2d 27 ; see Matter of Lipton v. Lipton , 98 A.D.3d at 622, 949 N.Y.S.2d 501 ). In addition 174 A.D.3d 630 to these considerations, "the nature and basis of the parents' objection to visitation are among the several circumstances which should be c......
-
Kelly v. Cairo
...of standing is not necessary where there are no triable issues of fact raised in the submitted papers’ " ( Matter of Sands v. Sands, 174 A.D.3d at 630, 101 N.Y.S.3d 877, quoting Matter of Broomfield v. Evans, 140 A.D.3d 748, 749, 30 N.Y.S.3d 915 ). Here, equitable considerations do not warr......
-
State v. Robert A.
...M., 24 N.Y.3d at 659, 2 N.Y.S.3d 830, 26 N.E.3d 769 [internal quotation marks omitted]; accord Matter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 632, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 [2019] ). As such, in the context of this revocation proceeding, Supreme Court had two dispositional alternatives: civi......
-
State v. Benjamin M.
...of the appellant's expert witness is supported by the record, and we find no basis to disturb it (see Matter of State of New York v. Ted B., 174 A.D.3d 630, 103 N.Y.S.3d 141 ; Matter of State of New York v. Raul L., 120 A.D.3d 52, 988 N.Y.S.2d 190 ). At the dispositional hearing, the State ......