State v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Smith

85 A.D.3d 1606, 924 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedJune 10, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1606 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 85 A.D.3d 1606, 924 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered April 30, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order commit- • ted respondent to a secure treatment facility.

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility. We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence at the dispositional hearing that “respondent is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (§ 10.07 [f]). We are “[mjindful that Supreme Court was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting psychiatric testimony presented . . . , [and] we defer to the court’s decision to credit [1607]*1607[the testimony of petitioner’s] expert” (Matter of State of New York v Pierce, 79 AD3d 1779, 1781 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 712 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 79 AD3d 1687, 1688 [2010]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered April 30, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order commit- • ted respondent to a secure treatment facility.

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

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order determining that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment facility. We reject respondent’s contention that petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence at the dispositional hearing that “respondent is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility” (§ 10.07 [f]). We are “[mjindful that Supreme Court was in the best position to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting psychiatric testimony presented . . . , [and] we defer to the court’s decision to credit [1607]*1607[the testimony of petitioner’s] expert” (Matter of State of New York v Pierce, 79 AD3d 1779, 1781 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 712 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of State of New York v Motzer, 79 AD3d 1687, 1688 [2010]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 1606, 924 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack