People v. Green

92 A.D.3d 854, 938 N.Y.2d 810
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[855]*855Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s relationship with the complainant “had been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization,” such that the County Court properly assessed the defendant 20 points under risk factor seven (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006]; see People v Taylor, 48 AD3d 775, 776 [2008]; People v Grosfeld, 35 AD3d 692, 693 [2006]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly adjudicated a level two sex offender.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Belen and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Green, 92 A.D.3d 854, 938 N.Y.2d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 854 (People v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hamlin
140 A.D.3d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)