People v. Hardy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardy

60 A.D.3d 1360, 876 N.Y.S.2d 277

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.3d 1360 (People v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 60 A.D.3d 1360, 876 N.Y.S.2d 277 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered August 9, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order designating [1361]*1361him a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.)- Defendant contends that County Court’s assessment of 40 additional points at the SORA hearing is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and thus that he was not properly classified as a level three risk (see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. The record establishes that the court properly considered the case summary, which constitutes reliable hearsay, in determining defendant’s risk level (see People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Garni and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), entered August 9, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order designating [1361]*1361him a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.)- Defendant contends that County Court’s assessment of 40 additional points at the SORA hearing is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and thus that he was not properly classified as a level three risk (see § 168-n [3]). We reject that contention. The record establishes that the court properly considered the case summary, which constitutes reliable hearsay, in determining defendant’s risk level (see People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Martoche, J.P., Centra, Garni and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.3d 1360, 876 N.Y.S.2d 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardy-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack