8438. IN RE THE STATE OF NEW YORK, pet-res, —AGAINSTNELSON D., res-res — Marvin Bernstein, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, New York (Diane Goldstein Temkin of counsel), for ap — Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Laura R. Johnson of counsel), for res — Amended order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), entered October 24, 2011, which directed that res, as a sex offender requiring strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST), reside at the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive Treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. THE COURT’S DETERMINATION THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD RECEIVE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT AT THE VALLEY RIDGE CENTER FORINTENSIVETREATMENT WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (MHL) §10.11, WHICH PRESCRIBES CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION, INCLUDING SPECIFICATIONOF RESIDENCE AND TYPEOFRESIDENCE, THAT MAY BE IMPOSED AS PART OF SIST. BECAUSE THE SIST REGIMEN IMPOSED WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER MHLARTICLE 10, PETITIONER’S SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE NOT OFFENDED (see Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346 [1996]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRSTDEPARTMENT. TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, DEGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ. 8439. PEOPLE, res, v. EFRAIN ORTIZ, defap — Stanley Neustadter, Cardozo Appeals Clinic, NewYork (Douglas M. Schneider of counsel), for ap — Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Beth Fisch Cohen of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, NewYork County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered August 2, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first and second degrees (four counts each), criminal sexual act in the first and second degrees (two counts each), assault in the third degree (two counts), and menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 30 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony.
