People v. Gable
This text of 157 N.Y.S.3d 762 (People v. Gable) 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.
Opinion
| People v Gable |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 00446 |
| Decided on January 26, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on January 26, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2019-07677
v
Jacob Gable, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Central Islip, NY (Anju M. Alexander of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), dated June 21, 2019, which, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In this proceeding pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the County Court, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his request for a downward departure. Although in some cases involving offenders who possessed child pornography, the assessment of points under risk factor 7 might result in an overassessment of the risk a defendant poses to the community (see People v Smith, 187 AD3d 1228, 1229; People v Goldman, 150 AD3d 905, 907; see also People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 860; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421), here, the defendant failed to identify and prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of an appropriate mitigating factor that would warrant a downward departure (see People v Morales, 192 AD3d 930; People v Smith, 187 AD3d at 1229; see also People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861).
Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
BARROS, J.P., CONNOLLY, HINDS-RADIX and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
157 N.Y.S.3d 762, 201 A.D.3d 975, 2022 NY Slip Op 00446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gable-nyappdiv-2022.