People v. Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cannon

34 A.D.3d 1227, 823 N.Y.S.2d 720, 824 N.Y.S.2d 513

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1227 (People v. Cannon) 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. Cannon, 34 A.D.3d 1227, 823 N.Y.S.2d 720, 824 N.Y.S.2d 513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered February 7, 2005. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The sworn statement upon which the court based its determination was reliable hearsay (see People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]), and the court’s determination of defendant’s risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Warwick, 5 AD3d 1050 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered February 7, 2005. 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: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The sworn statement upon which the court based its determination was reliable hearsay (see People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]), and the court’s determination of defendant’s risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Warwick, 5 AD3d 1050 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1227, 823 N.Y.S.2d 720, 824 N.Y.S.2d 513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cannon-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack