Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re the State of New York, Petitioner-Respondent v. Richard Rosado

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


April 17, 2012

IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
RICHARD ROSADO, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Matter of Matter of State of New York v Rosado

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 April 17, 2012

Tom, J.P., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, Roman, JJ.

Order of commitment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), entered March 8, 2011, which, upon a finding of mental abnormality made after a jury trial, and a determination made after a dispositional hearing that appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed appellant to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Appellant challenges only the court's determination that his father's testimony was not relevant to the first phase of the article 10 proceeding, concerning whether or not he suffered from a mental abnormality. A mental abnormality is defined as "a congenital or acquired condition, disease or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity of [the offender] in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in [the offender] having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03[i]). Appellant's father subsequently testified in the dispositional phase of the proceedings concerning the arrangements he had made for appellant's return to the community.

The court properly exercised its broad discretion in rejecting the proposed evidence in the first phase of the trial on the grounds of materiality and relevance (see Mayorga v Jocarl & Ron Co., 41 AD3d 132, 134 [2007], appeal dismissed 9 NY3d 996 [2007]). Appellant's father's testimony did not relate to appellant's mental condition and was properly reserved for the later phase of the proceedings.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: APRIL 17, 2012

CLERK

20120417

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.