In re Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Weinstein

304 A.D.2d 769, 757 N.Y.S.2d 772

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 769 (In re Weinstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Weinstein, 304 A.D.2d 769, 757 N.Y.S.2d 772 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, the petitioner appeals from an order of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), dated February 28, 2002, which designated him a level two sex offender.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petitioner is designated a level one sex offender.

The Supreme Court’s determination designating the petitioner a level two sex offender is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record (see Correction Law § 168-Z [6] [b]; § 168-n [3]; People v Mallory, 293 AD2d 881 [2002]). Rather, the evidence supports a level one designation (see Correction Law 168-Z [6] [a]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, the petitioner appeals from an order of the County Court, Putnam County (Rooney, J.), dated February 28, 2002, which designated him a level two sex offender.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the petitioner is designated a level one sex offender.

The Supreme Court’s determination designating the petitioner a level two sex offender is not supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record (see Correction Law § 168-Z [6] [b]; § 168-n [3]; People v Mallory, 293 AD2d 881 [2002]). Rather, the evidence supports a level one designation (see Correction Law 168-Z [6] [a]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 769, 757 N.Y.S.2d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-weinstein-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack