People v. Burroughs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burroughs

28 A.D.3d 1204, 812 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedApril 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 1204 (People v. Burroughs) 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. Burroughs, 28 A.D.3d 1204, 812 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J), entered January 7, 2004. 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 be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court’s determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law [1205]*1205§ 168 et seq.) is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and thus should not be disturbed (see § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank E Geraci, Jr., J), entered January 7, 2004. 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 be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court’s determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law [1205]*1205§ 168 et seq.) is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and thus should not be disturbed (see § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 510 [2003]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 1204, 812 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burroughs-nyappdiv-2006.