People v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cunningham

68 A.D.3d 1795, 890 N.Y.2d 839

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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]*1796to 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

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]*1796to 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1795, 890 N.Y.2d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack