People v. Atkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Atkinson

34 A.D.3d 551, 823 N.Y.S.2d 688

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 551 (People v. Atkinson) 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

People v. Atkinson, 34 A.D.3d 551, 823 N.Y.S.2d 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 15, 2005, which, without a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence submitted by the People established, by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-k [2]), including reliable hearsay (id.), the existence of facts sufficient to support the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that the defendant be classified as a level three sex offender (see People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 15, 2005, which, without a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence submitted by the People established, by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-k [2]), including reliable hearsay (id.), the existence of facts sufficient to support the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that the defendant be classified as a level three sex offender (see People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379 [1997]). Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 551, 823 N.Y.S.2d 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-atkinson-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack