SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

904 

CA 15-00868 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE 

OF MELVIN WALLS, CONSECUTIVE NO. 76930, FROM 

CENTRAL NEW YORK PSYCHIATRIC CENTER PURSUANT TO 

MENTAL HYGIENE LAW SECTION 10.09, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF 

MENTAL HEALTH AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, 

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, UTICA

(PATRICK T. CHAMBERLAIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Joseph

E. Fahey, A.J.), entered April 29, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to

Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order denied the motion of

petitioner to vacate an order for continued confinement. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: By order entered in December 2013, Supreme Court

determined after an annual review hearing pursuant to Mental Hygiene

Law § 10.09 (d) that petitioner is currently a dangerous sex offender

requiring confinement. The court continued petitioner’s confinement

in a secure treatment facility. Following the decision of the Court

of Appeals in Matter of State of New York v Donald DD. (24 NY3d 174),

petitioner’s counsel moved to vacate the above order pursuant to CPLR

5015 (a), contending that the evidence submitted during the annual

review hearing is not legally sufficient to support a finding that

petitioner suffers from a mental abnormality. The court denied the

motion. We affirm. 

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in

denying petitioner’s CPLR 5015 (a) motion (see Matter of State of New

York v Richard TT., 132 AD3d 72, 75, affd 27 NY3d 718). Contrary to

petitioner’s contention, the evidence is legally sufficient to

establish that he has “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or
-2- 904 

CA 15-00868 

disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive, or volitional capacity

of a person in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission

of conduct constituting a sex offense” (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03

[i]). Here, respondents’ expert testified that petitioner has such a

predisposing condition based on diagnoses of personality disorder, not

otherwise specified, with antisocial traits, combined with cocaine and

alcohol abuse. Respondents’ expert also stated that petitioner

exhibited behavior markers of an abnormal sexual interest in

nonconsensual sexual behavior. In view of the foregoing, and

considering the evidence in the light most favorable to respondents

(see Matter of State of New York v John S., 23 NY3d 326, 348, rearg

denied 24 NY3d 933), we conclude that there is legally sufficient

evidence in the record to sustain a finding of mental abnormality (see

§ 10.03 [i]; Matter of State of New York v Dennis K., 27 NY3d 718,

749-750; Matter of State of New York v Charada T., 23 NY3d 355, 359,

362; Matter of Vega v State of New York, 140 AD3d 1608, 1608-1609;

Matter of State of New York v Williams, 139 AD3d 1375, 1377). 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court