People v. Hatras

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hatras

41 A.D.3d 810, 837 N.Y.S.2d 582

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

DecidedJune 26, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.3d 810 (People v. Hatras) 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. Hatras, 41 A.D.3d 810, 837 N.Y.S.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the People from (1) a decision of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated December 8, 2005, made after a hearing, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 15, 2005, which, upon the decision, designated the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision dated December 8, 2005, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the County Court’s order to designate the defendant a level two sex offender. The order thus will not be disturbed on appeal (see People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404, 406 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the People from (1) a decision of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), dated December 8, 2005, made after a hearing, and (2) an order of the same court dated December 15, 2005, which, upon the decision, designated the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision dated December 8, 2005, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the County Court’s order to designate the defendant a level two sex offender. The order thus will not be disturbed on appeal (see People v Burgos, 39 AD3d 520 [2007]; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515, 516 [2006]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404, 406 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Krausman and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 810, 837 N.Y.S.2d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hatras-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack