NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2017

DocketKA 15-02151

StatusPublished

This text of NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v (NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v) 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

NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

399 KA 15-02151 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC G. NILSEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), entered November 24, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v St. Jean, 101 AD3d 1684, 1685; People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110, 1110, lv denied 11 NY3d 708). In any event, that contention lacks merit. “ ‘A defendant seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of . . . identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines’ ” (People v Collette, 142 AD3d 1300, 1301, lv denied 28 NY3d 912). Here, defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to establish the existence of a mitigating factor by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see People v Reber, 145 AD3d 1627, 1628; see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

399 KA 15-02151 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC G. NILSEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), entered November 24, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level (see People v St. Jean, 101 AD3d 1684, 1685; People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110, 1110, lv denied 11 NY3d 708). In any event, that contention lacks merit. “ ‘A defendant seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of . . . identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines’ ” (People v Collette, 142 AD3d 1300, 1301, lv denied 28 NY3d 912). Here, defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level inasmuch as he failed to establish the existence of a mitigating factor by the requisite preponderance of the evidence (see People v Reber, 145 AD3d 1627, 1628; see generally People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861).

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NILSEN, ERIC G., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nilsen-eric-g-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack