Matter of Steven M. v. State of New York

220 A.D.3d 1172, 197 N.Y.S.3d 403, 2023 NY Slip Op 05059

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 6, 2023
• Docket: 608 CA 22-00880
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Steven M. v State of New York (2023 NY Slip Op 05059)

Matter of Steven M. v State of New York

2023 NY Slip Op 05059

Decided on October 6, 2023

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 6, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CURRAN, MONTOUR, OGDEN, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

608 CA 22-00880

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCHARGE OF STEVEN M., FROM CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER PURSUANT TO MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10.09, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, PLLC, SYRACUSE (REBECCA L. KONST OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATE H. NEPVEU OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Gregory J. Amoroso, A.J.), entered May 3, 2022, in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, inter alia, continued the confinement of petitioner to a secure treatment facility.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order, entered after an annual review hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d), determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under section 10.03 (e), and directing his continued confinement to a secure treatment facility (see § 10.09 [h]). We affirm.

Petitioner contends that his sex offender treatment plan should be modified to focus on his diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and the condition of hypersexuality, rather than a provisional diagnosis of pedophilic disorder. That contention is raised for the first time on appeal, and thus is not properly before us (see Matter of State of New York v Edward T., 161 AD3d 1589, 1589 [4th Dept 2018]; Matter of State of New York v Breeden, 140 AD3d 1649, 1650 [4th Dept 2016]). In any event, we note that the adequacy of a sex offender treatment plan is not before the court in an annual review proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (d) (see generally

Matter of James WW. v State of New York, 201 AD3d 1069, 1071 [3d Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 909 [2022]).

Entered: October 6, 2023

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court