People v. Delaney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delaney

71 A.D.3d 751, 895 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 751 (People v. Delaney) 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. Delaney, 71 A.D.3d 751, 895 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered January 4, 2005, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant’s sex offender risk level pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]), designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Solis, 52 AD3d 800 [2008]; People v Bula, 41 AD3d 569 [2007]; People v Morris, 33AD3d 778 [2006]; People v Baylor, 19 AD3d 467 [2005]; People v Cureton, 299 AD2d 532 [2002]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered January 4, 2005, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant’s sex offender risk level pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]), designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Solis, 52 AD3d 800 [2008]; People v Bula, 41 AD3d 569 [2007]; People v Morris, 33AD3d 778 [2006]; People v Baylor, 19 AD3d 467 [2005]; People v Cureton, 299 AD2d 532 [2002]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Fisher, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 751, 895 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delaney-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack