STATE OF NEW YORK v. CONNOR, FRANK ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1407
    CA 14-00654
    PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF NEW YORK,
    PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
    V                             MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    FRANK CONNOR, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF
    COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County (James
    P. Punch, A.J.), entered March 11, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to
    Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, inter alia, committed
    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 pursuant to Mental
    Hygiene Law article 10 determining, following a jury trial, that he is
    a detained sex offender who has a mental abnormality within the
    meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i) and determining, following a
    dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring
    confinement in a secure treatment facility. We reject respondent’s
    contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
    Here, petitioner’s two expert psychologists testified that respondent
    suffered from a mental abnormality, and although respondent’s expert
    testified to the contrary, “ ‘[t]he jury verdict is entitled to great
    deference based on the jury’s opportunity to evaluate the weight and
    credibility of conflicting expert testimony’ ” (Matter of State of New
    York v Gierszewski, 81 AD3d 1473, 1474, lv denied 17 NY3d 702; see
    Matter of State of New York v Parrott, 125 AD3d 1438, 1439, lv denied
    25 NY3d 911). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that “the
    evidence does not preponderate[] so greatly in [respondent’s] favor
    that the jury could not have reached its conclusion on any fair
    interpretation of the evidence” (Gierszewski, 81 AD3d at 1474
    [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to respondent’s further
    contention, we conclude that petitioner established by clear and
    convincing evidence at the dispositional hearing that he is a
    dangerous sex offender requiring confinement (see §§ 10.03 [e]; 10.07
    [f]). “Supreme Court, as the trier of fact, was in the best position
    to evaluate the weight and credibility of the conflicting
    -2-                          1407
    CA 14-00654
    [psychological] testimony presented . . . , and we see no basis to
    disturb its decision to credit the testimony of petitioner’s expert
    over that of respondent’s expert” (Matter of State of New York v
    Gooding, 104 AD3d 1282, 1282, lv denied 21 NY3d 862 [internal
    quotation marks omitted]).
    Entered: December 31, 2015                      Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CA 14-00654

Filed Date: 12/31/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/7/2016