People v. Harden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harden

60 A.D.3d 486, 875 N.Y.S.2d 35

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 486 (People v. Harden) 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. Harden, 60 A.D.3d 486, 875 N.Y.S.2d 35 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2007, 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 adjudication. The risk factor for deviant sexual intercourse was established by grand jury testimony that was corroborated by a laboratory report. We conclude that this evidence was sufficiently reliable to meet the clear and convincing standard notwithstanding the presence of some inconsistencies. The court also properly assessed points under the factor for drug abuse based on defendant’s own admission, coupled with his criminal history (see People v Reyes, 48 AD3d 267 [2008]), and assessed an appropriate number of points under the factor for lack of supervised release, although this was a matter beyond defendant’s control (see People v Lewis, 37 AD 3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).

Motion seeking leave to strike portions of brief denied. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about October 22, 2007, 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 adjudication. The risk factor for deviant sexual intercourse was established by grand jury testimony that was corroborated by a laboratory report. We conclude that this evidence was sufficiently reliable to meet the clear and convincing standard notwithstanding the presence of some inconsistencies. The court also properly assessed points under the factor for drug abuse based on defendant’s own admission, coupled with his criminal history (see People v Reyes, 48 AD3d 267 [2008]), and assessed an appropriate number of points under the factor for lack of supervised release, although this was a matter beyond defendant’s control (see People v Lewis, 37 AD 3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).

Motion seeking leave to strike portions of brief denied. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 486, 875 N.Y.S.2d 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harden-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack