People v. Gilligan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gilligan

94 A.D.3d 844, 941 N.Y.S.2d 859

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated August 26, 2010, 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.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the County Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2007]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed certain points under the Risk Assessment Instrument, or that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level three designation (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 803 [2012]; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662 [2006]; People v Lombard, 30 AD3d 573, 574 [2006]; see also People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), dated August 26, 2010, 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.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the County Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2007]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed certain points under the Risk Assessment Instrument, or that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level three designation (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 803 [2012]; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662 [2006]; People v Lombard, 30 AD3d 573, 574 [2006]; see also People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Gilligan, 94 A.D.3d 844, 941 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

94 A.D.3d 844 (People v. Gilligan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related