Case Name: In the Matter of Tyrone D., Appellant, v. State of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-02-12
Citations: 24 N.Y.3d 661
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Tyrone D., Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: Judges Read, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur; Judges Stein and Fahey taking no part.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 661–667

Head Matter:
[26 NE3d 1146, 3 NYS3d 291]
In the Matter of Tyrone D., Appellant, v State of New York et al., Respondents.
Argued January 13, 2015;
decided February 12, 2015
POINTS OF COUNSEL
D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse {John A. Cirando, Bradley E. Keem and Elizabeth deV. Moeller of counsel), for appellant.
I. A motion for change of venue was available and was incorrectly denied. (Rosner v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 96 NY2d 475; Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95; Matter of Tonis v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y., 295 NY 286; Matter of State of New York v Zimmer, 26 Misc 3d 299; Matter of State of New York v Enrique T., 93 AD3d 158.) II. Appellant did not waive his annual review hearing by declining to appear. (People v Burts, 64 AD2d 283; People v La Barbera, 274 NY 339; People v Arrahman, 83 AD3d 680; People v Brooks, 308 AD2d 99, 1 NY3d 502; People v Erb, 59 AD3d 1020; Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95.) III. Good cause was not shown to dispense with testimony and simply rely on the expert’s report. (Matter of State of New York v J.A., 21 Misc 3d 806; Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95; Matter of State of New York v Mark S., 87 AD3d 73, 17 NY3d 714; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 20 NY3d 852.) IV The evidence did not support the determination that the clear and convincing evidence showed that appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement. (Matter of State of New York v Farnsworth, 75 AD3d 14, 15 NY3d 848; Matter of State of New York v Walter W., 94 AD3d 1177, 19 NY3d 810; Matter of State of New York v Enrique T., 93 AD3d 158, 18 NY3d 976; Matter of State of New York v Trombley, 98 AD3d 1300, 20 NY3d 856; Matter of State of New York v Timothy EE., 97 AD3d 996.) V Appellant did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. (Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95; Matter of State of New York v Campany, 77 AD3d 92, 15 NY3d 713; Lewis v Lewis, 70 AD3d 1432; Matter of Jenna KK., 50 AD3d 1216, 11 NY3d 703; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143; People v Turner, 5 NY3d 476; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708.)
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany {Laura Etlinger, Barbara D. Underwood and Andrea Oser of counsel), for respondents.
I. Petitioner’s procedural claims are academic, and should therefore not be reviewed by this Court. (Siegmund Strauss, Inc. v East 149th Realty Corp., 20 NY3d 37; Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241; Oakes v Patel, 20 NY3d 633; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce v Pataki, 100 NY2d 801; Matter ofHearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707.) II. If the Court were to review petitioner’s procedural claims, it should reject them. (Matter of State of New York v Williams, 92 AD3d 1271, 96 AD3d 1513; Matter of State of New York v Steinmetz, 101 AD3d 1726; Matter of State of New York v Carter, 100 AD3d 1438; Matter of State of New York v Zimmer, 63 AD3d 1562; Rochester Drug Coop., Inc. v Marcott Pharmacy N. Corp., 15 AD3d 899; O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 207 AD2d 169; Andros v Roderick, 162 AD2d 813; Humphrey v State of New York, 60 NY2d 742; Matter of Granger v Misercola, 21 NY3d 86; People v Winchell, 64 NY2d 826.) III. Petitioner’s sole substantive claim — that the court should not have ordered his continuing confinement — was properly rejected by both courts below.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Lippman.
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether Mental Hygiene Law article 10 authorizes a motion for a change of venue in an annual review hearing. We hold that the statute does allow venue to be changed in article 10 hearings upon an appropriate showing of good cause. However, since the motion at issue failed to establish the requisite good cause, the requested change of venue was properly denied.
Petitioner Tyrone D. was adjudicated a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement to a secure treatment facility and was committed to Central New York Psychiatric Center in 2010. The following January, the Office of Mental Health (OMH) provided petitioner with notice of his annual right to petition for discharge under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 (a). Petitioner checked the box on the form provided, indicating that he did "not wish to waive [his] right to petition for discharge," and commenced a proceeding in Oneida County seeking his discharge from confinement.
Petitioner moved to change venue for the annual review hearing from Oneida County to New York County, citing to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e) and CPLR 510. In support of the motion, his counsel submitted an affirmation asserting that holding the hearing in Oneida County would make "it extremely inconvenient, burdensome and impossible for his family to travel there to appear at his hearing as their finances are limited and some family members have physical health issues." Counsel further opined that most of the potential witnesses — e.g., those who might need to testify about the potential local resources, including available treatment programs — lived in the New York County area and that it would likewise be burdensome and inconvenient to require them to travel to Oneida County. Finally, counsel submitted that a judge based in New York County would be "more attuned to the local situation" and better suited to making a determination regarding petitioner's status. The affirmation did not identify any particular potential witness or provide the subject of any proposed testimony.
In opposition, the State argued that article 10 did not allow for a change of venue in annual review hearings. The State also maintained that, assuming petitioner was permitted to move for a change of venue, the motion in this case failed to satisfy the good cause requirement of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e).
Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found that, although Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e) did allow venue to be changed for annual review hearings, counsel's conclusory affirmation in support of the motion failed to establish the requisite good cause.
Petitioner then refused to be interviewed by OMH's psychiatric examiner, Trica Peterson, Ph.D., for the purpose of his annual psychiatric examination. Based on a review of the available records, Peterson generated a report concluding that petitioner met the criteria for diagnoses of personality disorder, not otherwise specified with antisocial traits, and psychopathy, as well as a provisional diagnosis of sexual sadism. In Dr. Peterson's professional opinion, petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement. Although the court also appointed an independent psychiatric examiner to conduct an evaluation on petitioner's behalf, petitioner again refused to be interviewed. Thereupon, the psychologist declined to prepare a report. The Commissioner of OMH issued a determination finding that petitioner was currently a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement.
On the date of the scheduled annual review hearing, petitioner was not present and his counsel advised the court that petitioner did not wish to appear. The court then asked, "[s]o, he didn't want to come and he doesn't want his hearing?," to which counsel responded, "[r]ight." The court inquired whether petitioner had signed anything to that effect and counsel indicated that she had "sent him a letter confirming that." The court then stated "Okay. Well, he doesn't want his review, that's his choice. So, I'll deem his nonappearance a waiver and state the representations he's made to support that way, accordingly." The hearing was then terminated.
Supreme Court subsequently issued an order finding that there was no substantial issue as to whether petitioner continued to have a mental abnormality predisposing him to commit sex offenses. The court further found that there was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement to a secure treatment facility.
The Appellate Division affirmed (106 AD3d 1488 [4th Dept 2013]). The Court found that the nonfinal order denying the change of venue motion necessarily affected, and was reviewable on appeal from, the final order (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). The Court then determined that Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 authorized a change of venue only for article 10 trials, not for hearings. The Court found that petitioner had, through counsel, waived his right to an annual review hearing and rejected his remaining contentions as without merit. We granted petitioner's motion for leave to appeal (22 NY3d 852 [2013]), and now affirm.
We agree with the Appellate Division that, in these unique circumstances, the nonfinal order denying petitioner's motion for a change of venue necessarily affected the final order and is therefore reviewable on this appeal.
Relating to venue, Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 (e) provides that "[a]t any hearing or trial pursuant to the provisions of this article, the court may change the venue of the trial to any county for good cause, which may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent." The State no longer advocates the position it took earlier in this litigation and now concedes that venue can be changed at either a hearing or a trial under article 10, provided that the petitioner has demonstrated good cause. Although it is no longer incumbent upon us to decide this issue, we agree that the better interpretation of the statute is the one advocated by the parties. The construction of the provision is somewhat ambiguous, in that, if the legislature intended to restrict a change of venue to article 10 trials, the reference to "any hearing or trial" would appear to be superfluous. We see no need to read a restriction into the statute limiting annual review hearings solely to the few counties where secure treatment facilities are located.
However, petitioner failed to establish good cause for the change of venue. As noted above, the statute provides that good cause "may include considerations relating to the convenience of the parties or witnesses or the condition of the respondent" (Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [e]). The affirmation submitted in support of the motion did urge, generally, that it would be inconvenient and burdensome for unnamed family members and other potential witnesses to travel to Oneida County, but failed to identify a single witness that would testify on petitioner's behalf. Nor did the affirmation set forth the subject of any proposed testimony — let alone identify any information that would be potentially relevant to the issue of whether petitioner remained a dangerous sex offender in need of confinement. Therefore, the motion for a change of venue was properly denied.
Petitioner further claims that he did not waive his annual review hearing by failing to appear. The colloquy between Supreme Court and counsel on this issue was undeniably perfunctory, especially where, as here, petitioner had previously indicated, by checking the appropriate box on the notice and waiver form, that he did not intend to waive his hearing. It is conceivable that a petitioner could forgo his or her appearance at the hearing without waiving the hearing itself. The court should, therefore, satisfy itself that a petitioner truly intends to waive the hearing (see e.g. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09 [d]). Under the circumstances presented here, however, the court was entitled to rely upon counsel's representation that petitioner did not want his annual review hearing (see generally People v Flinn, 22 NY3d 599, 602 [2014] ["a lawyer may be trusted to explain rights to his or her client, and to report to the court the result of that discussion"]).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Judges Read, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur; Judges Stein and Fahey taking no part.
Order affirmed, without costs.