People v. Cullen

53 A.D.3d 1105, 862 N.Y.S.2d 684
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 3, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 1105 (People v. Cullen) 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. Cullen, 53 A.D.3d 1105, 862 N.Y.S.2d 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), entered [1106]*1106August 10, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Cayuga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following 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.). We agree with defendant that County Court failed to comply with Correction Law § 168-n (3), pursuant to which the court was required to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its determination. The statement of the court that it was adopting the recommendations of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, without further explanation, was insufficient to meet that requirement (see People v Marr, 20 AD3d 692 [2005]; see also People v Miranda, 24 AD3d 909, 911 [2005]). On the record before us, we are unable to review whether the court properly determined defendant’s risk level by considering, inter alia, evidence concerning defendant’s health problems that would impact on whether defendant “suffers from a physical condition that minimizes his risk of reoffense” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 5 [2006]). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court for compliance with the statute (see People v Terrill, 17 AD3d 1045 [2005]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Gatling
2020 NY Slip Op 06921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Dean
2019 NY Slip Op 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
LONG, CORNELL, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
People v. Long
81 A.D.3d 1432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Flax
71 A.D.3d 1451 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Hubel
70 A.D.3d 1492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Cullen
60 A.D.3d 1466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.3d 1105, 862 N.Y.S.2d 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cullen-nyappdiv-2008.