People v. Cunningham

68 A.D.3d 1795, 890 N.Y.2d 839
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2009·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the statements in the case summary constitute reliable hearsay upon which County Court properly relied pursuant [1796] to Correction Law § 168-n (3) (see People v Thompson, 66 AD3d 1455 [2009]; People v Ramos, 41 AD3d 1250 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]; People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Those statements constitute clear and convincing evidence that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level was warranted based upon “an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, . . . otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Hurlbutt, Smith and Centra, JJ.

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

People v. Cunningham, 68 A.D.3d 1795, 890 N.Y.2d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 1795 (People v. Cunningham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

EDWARDS, ALVIN G., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012