People v. Gallard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gallard

36 A.D.3d 680, 826 N.Y.S.2d 574

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 16, 2007·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), dated April 12, 2005, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant’s sex offender risk level, conducted pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]), determined that he was a level two sex offender.

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

[681]*681The adjudication of the defendant as a level two sex offender was supported by “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]; People v Brown, 25 AD3d 924 [2006]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 (Marrero, J.), dated April 12, 2005, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant’s sex offender risk level, conducted pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]), determined that he was a level two sex offender.

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

[681]*681The adjudication of the defendant as a level two sex offender was supported by “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776, 777 [2006]; People v Brown, 25 AD3d 924 [2006]; People v Hines, 24 AD3d 524 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Rivera, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

People v. Gallard, 36 A.D.3d 680, 826 N.Y.S.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

36 A.D.3d 680 (People v. Gallard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related