State v. Rodney J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Rodney J.

111 A.D.3d 560, 975 N.Y.S.2d 654

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 560 (State v. Rodney J.) 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

State v. Rodney J., 111 A.D.3d 560, 975 N.Y.S.2d 654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, [561]*561Bronx County (Colleen D. Duffy, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed him to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [e]; 10.07 [f]). The evidence, including the testimony of two experts and respondent himself, established that he had committed numerous sex offenses against five victims, at least two of whom were young girls, had committed sex offenses against male inmates and patients while confined and undergoing sex offender treatment, had failed to complete any sex offender treatment program, and has a cognitive disorder causing him to believe that his victims have consented to sexual activity (see People v Derrick S., 93 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2012]). Respondent presents no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, [561]*561Bronx County (Colleen D. Duffy, J.), entered on or about August 30, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed him to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [e]; 10.07 [f]). The evidence, including the testimony of two experts and respondent himself, established that he had committed numerous sex offenses against five victims, at least two of whom were young girls, had committed sex offenses against male inmates and patients while confined and undergoing sex offender treatment, had failed to complete any sex offender treatment program, and has a cognitive disorder causing him to believe that his victims have consented to sexual activity (see People v Derrick S., 93 AD3d 423 [1st Dept 2012]). Respondent presents no basis to disturb the court’s credibility determinations. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 560, 975 N.Y.S.2d 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodney-j-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack