Matter of State of New York v. Cleophus H.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of State of New York v. Cleophus H.

139 A.D.3d 868, 31 N.Y.S.3d 548

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 11, 2016

Docket2015-02708

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 868 (Matter of State of New York v. Cleophus H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of State of New York v. Cleophus H., 139 A.D.3d 868, 31 N.Y.S.3d 548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Cleophus H., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, Cleophus H. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), dated March 12, 2015, which, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial (Ozzi, J.), that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon a determination (Mullen, J.), made after a dispositional hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (f), that he is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

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

*869 Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s finding that he suffered from a “mental abnormality” as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) (see Matter of State of New York v Shannon S., 20 NY3d 99 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776 [2011]), and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 120 AD3d 694, 695 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 911 [2014]).

Moreover, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the State established that the appellant suffers 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” and, therefore, is a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; see Matter of State of New York v Abdul A., 123 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2014]; Matter of State of New York v Robert F., 101 AD3d 1133, 1137 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82 AD3d 1250 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Steven L., 66 AD3d 788, 789 [2009]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Cleophus H., an alleged sex offender requiring civil management, Cleophus H. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), dated March 12, 2015, which, upon a finding, made after a nonjury trial (Ozzi, J.), that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon a determination (Mullen, J.), made after a dispositional hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (f), that he is currently a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

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

*869 Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the evidence at trial was legally sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s finding that he suffered from a “mental abnormality” as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) (see Matter of State of New York v Shannon S., 20 NY3d 99 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776 [2011]), and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 120 AD3d 694, 695 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 911 [2014]).

Moreover, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court’s finding that the State established that the appellant suffers 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” and, therefore, is a “dangerous sex offender requiring confinement” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]; see Matter of State of New York v Abdul A., 123 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2014]; Matter of State of New York v Robert F., 101 AD3d 1133, 1137 [2012]; Matter of State of New York v Anonymous, 82 AD3d 1250 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Steven L., 66 AD3d 788, 789 [2009]).

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 868, 31 N.Y.S.3d 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-state-of-new-york-v-cleophus-h-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack