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 the Matter of the State of New York v. Donald Brusso

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


April 26, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
v.
DONALD BRUSSO,
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas M. Van Strydonck, J.), entered November 2, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10.

Matter of State of New York v Brusso

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

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.

Released on April 26, 2013

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

The order, among other things, 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 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. Contrary to respondent's 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 credibility of the testimony presented and the weight to be accorded such testimony, and we discern no basis to disturb the court's determination (see generally Matter of State of New York v Blair, 87 AD3d 1327, 1327; Matter of State of New York v Boutelle, 85 AD3d 1607, 1607). We further reject respondent's contention that he was denied due process because the court did not set forth detailed findings of fact in support of its decision. There is no such requirement in Mental Hygiene Law article 10 and, in any event, we conclude that the court's bench decision adequately sets forth the basis for the court's decision.

Entered: April 26, 2013

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20130426

© 1992-2013 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.