People v. Gehm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 24, 2026·No. 546 KA 25-01239·Published

Opinion

People v Gehm - 2026 NY Slip Op 04704
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

People v Gehm

2026 NY Slip Op 04704

July 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

ROBERT B. GEHM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on July 24, 2026

546 KA 25-01239

Present: Whalen, P.J., Curran, Montour, Greenwood, And Nowak, JJ.

DANIEL M. GRIEBEL, TONAWANDA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. KEANE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (HARMONY A. HEALY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), entered April 25, 2025. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

[*1]

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends only that County Court erred in assessing points against him under risk factors 9 and 13. We conclude that the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of that contention inasmuch as defendant has failed to include in the record the risk assessment instrument and the case summary on which the court relied in determining his risk level (see People v Davis, 17 AD3d 1155, 1155 [4th Dept 2005]). In any event, as defendant acknowledges, his contention that the court erred in assessing points under risk factors 9 and 13 is academic because, even without the 15 points at issue, defendant would still qualify as a level two risk (see People v Ellis, 204 AD3d 1388, 1390 [4th Dept 2022]; People v Robinson, 160 AD3d 1441, 1442 [4th Dept 2018]).

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

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

People v. Gehm, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

People v. Gehm (People v. Gehm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Davis
17 A.D.3d 1155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Ellis
166 N.Y.S.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)