At page 1135 Evaluating credibility of conflicting expert testimony4 citing cases“We reject petitioner’s further contention that respondents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring continued confinement (see generally Matter of State of New York v High, 83 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011]; Matter of State…”
- Abdullah v. State, 124 A.D.3d 1357 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015).published Supreme Court was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting expert testimony, and the record supports the court’s determination to credit the opinion of respondents’ expert over that of petitioner’s exp…
- Sincere KK. v. State, 111 A.D.3d 1083 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2013).published We reject petitioner’s contention that respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he continues to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [d],…
At page 1134 “the facts it deemfed essential”2 citing cases
- State v. Smith, 145 A.D.3d 1445 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2016).published In appeal No. 2, we reject respondent’s contention that the court failed to state in its decision “the facts it deemfed] essential” to its determination (CPLR 4213 [b]; see Matter of Skinner v State of New York, 108 AD3d 1134, 1134 [2013]).
Other citing cases
- State of New York v. Smith, Lerryl, No. CA 15-01830 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't Dec. 23, 2016).published
v.
State of New York
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Joseph E. Fahey, A.J.), entered March 9, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other things, continued petitioner’s commitment to a secure treatment facility.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner was previously deemed to be a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement and was committed to a secure treatment facility {see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.01 et seq.). Petitioner now appeals from an order, entered after an evidentiary hearing, continuing his confinement in a secure treatment facility {see § 10.09 [h]). We affirm. We reject petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court failed to “state in its decision ‘the facts it deem[ed] essential’ to its determination” (Matter of Jose L.I., 46 NY2d 1024, 1025 [1979], quoting CPLR 4213 [b]). “To comply with CPLR 4213 (b), a court need not set forth evidentiary facts, but it must state those ultimate facts essential to its decision” (Matter of Erika G., 289 AD2d 803, 804 [2001]). Here, the court’s “decision, despite its brevity, fully complies” with section 4213 (b) (Vance Metal Fabricators v Widell & Son, 50 AD2d 1062, 1063 [1975]). Specifically, the decision sets forth the court’s finding that petitioner continues to suffer from “a mental abnormality involving such a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses, and such an inability to control behavior, that [he] is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (§ 10.03 [e]).
[*1135] We reject petitioner’s further contention that respondents failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring continued confinement (see generally Matter of State of New York v High, 83 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 79 AD3d 1687, 1688 [2010]). While there was conflicting expert testimony with respect to the need for petitioner’s continued confinement, “[t]he trier of fact [was] in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of conflicting expert . . . testimony,” and here the record supports the court’s determination to credit the opinion of respondents’ expert over that of petitioner’s expert (Matter of State of New York v Donald N., 63 AD3d 1391,1394 [2009]). Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.