State v. Alfredo M.State v. Alfredo M.
Ordered that the notice of appeal by Mental Hygiene Legal Service is deemed to be a notice of appeal by Alfredo M. (see Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler, 1 NY3d 605 [2004]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant is a recidivist sex offender, who has sexually abused numerous minors. The appellant was convicted of a sex offense stemming from an incident that took place on or about April 14, 1989, involving a 13-year-old adolescent boy. Subsequently, the appellant was convicted of a sex offense stemming from incidents that took place over the course of a three-month period in 1993, involving a 7-year-old prepubescent boy. The appellant was also convicted of a sex offense stemming from incidents that took place over the course of that three-month period, involving an 8-year-old prepubescent boy. Finally, the appellant was convicted of the subject sex offense, which stemmed from incidents that took place over the course of a six-
In reviewing a finding made after a nonjury trial, the power of this Court is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment that it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Matter of State of New York v Andrew J.W., 85 AD3d 805, 806 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Leon F., 84 AD3d 1098, 1100 [2011]; Matter of State of New York v Clarence D., 82 AD3d 776, 777 [2011]). The Supreme Court‘s finding that the appellant suffers from a “[m]ental abnormality,” that is, “a congenital or acquired condition, disease or 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 and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct” (
Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court‘s determination that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement in a secure facility (see
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.