Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed an order revoking D.M.'s release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment and directing civil confinement under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The majority concluded that the State established by clear and convincing evidence that D.M. was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, based on his mental disorders, prior offenses, SIST violations, treatment noncompliance, and conduct involving minors. Justice Gesmer dissented, concluding that the evidence did not establish the required present inability to control sexual conduct.
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department
Jurisdiction
New York Appellate Division, First Department
Decision date
April 14, 2026
Docket number
Index No. 42056/21; Appeal No. 5352; Case No. 2024-05872
Disposition
affirmed
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence established that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement under Mental Hygiene Law article 10.
- Whether respondent's repeated SIST violations, including nonsexual violations and failure to complete sex-offender treatment, demonstrated a strong predisposition to commit sex offenses and an inability to control his behavior.
- Whether Supreme Court properly credited the State's expert over respondent's expert and deferred to that credibility determination.
Holdings
- The State established by clear and convincing evidence that respondent was a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement because his pedophilic disorder and antisocial personality disorder, together with his persistent SIST violations, failure to participate in treatment, lack of insight, and history of sexually related conduct, demonstrated that he remained likely to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility.
- The Appellate Division deferred to Supreme Court's determination crediting the State's expert because the trier of fact is in the best position to assess the weight and credibility of conflicting expert medical and psychiatric testimony.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…