People v. Frith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frith

131 A.D.3d 521, 14 N.Y.S.3d 710

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

DecidedAugust 12, 2015

Docket2011-03305

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D.3d 521 (People v. Frith) 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. Frith, 131 A.D.3d 521, 14 N.Y.S.3d 710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated April 1, 2011, which, after a hearing, 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 Supreme Court properly designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C). The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners, as well as the remaining documentation presented by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay,” and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of the points challenged by him on the instant appeal (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Williams, 95 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2012]).

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Hinds-Radix, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), dated April 1, 2011, which, after a hearing, 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 Supreme Court properly designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C). The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners, as well as the remaining documentation presented by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay,” and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of the points challenged by him on the instant appeal (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Williams, 95 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2012]).

Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 521, 14 N.Y.S.3d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frith-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack