Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Me
The verdict that respondent suffers from a mental abnormality is based on legally insufficient evidence. Evidence of an independent mental abnormality diagnosis is required to establish a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law article 10 (see Matter of State of New York v Donald DD., 24 NY3d 174 , 190-191 [2014]). Here, we find that based on the trial evidence, a rational factfinder could not conclude that sexual preoccupation is an independent mental abnormality. The State failed to present evidence that sexual preoccupation is a condition that predisposes one to commit a sex offense and results in serious difficulty in controlling the sexually offending conduct (see Matter of State of New York v Gen C., 128 AD3d 467 [1st Dept 2015]; Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 [i]).
Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Renwick, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.
Cases cited
- State v. Donald DD. 24 NY3d 174 at 190-191 p. 873
- State v. Gen C. 128 AD3d 467 p. 873