People v. Ginyard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ginyard

45 A.D.3d 268, 845 N.Y.S.2d 21

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 268 (People v. Ginyard) 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. Ginyard, 45 A.D.3d 268, 845 N.Y.S.2d 21 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. At the very least, defendant’s prison disciplinary record clearly war[269]*269ranted assessment of 10 points under the risk factor for conduct while confined (see People v Chabrier, 38 AD3d 355 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 801 [2007]), and these points alone, when added to 100 undisputed points, brought him up to the level three threshold. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), entered on or about June 9, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. At the very least, defendant’s prison disciplinary record clearly war[269]*269ranted assessment of 10 points under the risk factor for conduct while confined (see People v Chabrier, 38 AD3d 355 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 801 [2007]), and these points alone, when added to 100 undisputed points, brought him up to the level three threshold. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 268, 845 N.Y.S.2d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ginyard-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack