People v. Fabara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fabara

49 A.D.3d 619, 852 N.Y.2d 781

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 619 (People v. Fabara) 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. Fabara, 49 A.D.3d 619, 852 N.Y.2d 781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Although departures from the presumptive risk level determined by the risk assessment instrument are the exception rather than the rule, a departure is warranted where clear and convincing evidence demonstrates the existence of an aggravating or mitigating factor that in kind or degree is not otherwise taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines (see People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409 [2006]; People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446, 447 [2006]; People v White, 25 AD3d 677 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination to depart from the presumptive risk level and designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence based, inter alia, on the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, the defendant’s statements to the police, and the victims’ statements (see People v Leibach, 39 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2007]; People v Allen, 24 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

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

Although departures from the presumptive risk level determined by the risk assessment instrument are the exception rather than the rule, a departure is warranted where clear and convincing evidence demonstrates the existence of an aggravating or mitigating factor that in kind or degree is not otherwise taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines (see People v Thompson, 31 AD3d 409 [2006]; People v Forney, 28 AD3d 446, 447 [2006]; People v White, 25 AD3d 677 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination to depart from the presumptive risk level and designate him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence based, inter alia, on the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, the defendant’s statements to the police, and the victims’ statements (see People v Leibach, 39 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2007]; People v Allen, 24 AD3d 979, 980 [2005]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 619, 852 N.Y.2d 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fabara-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack