People v. Hayden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hayden

2016 NY Slip Op 7941, 144 A.D.3d 1010, 40 N.Y.S.3d 917

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

DecidedNovember 23, 2016

Docket2013-06161

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 7941 (People v. Hayden) 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. Hayden, 2016 NY Slip Op 7941, 144 A.D.3d 1010, 40 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated May 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

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

On May 31, 2000, the defendant was convicted of one count of rape in the third degree, and sentenced to a term of five years probation. At that time, the defendant was also designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. In 2012, the defendant made an application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk classification from level three to level one. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application, and we affirm.

Correction Law § 168-o (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478, 483 [2015]; People v Palladino, 137 AD3d 1098 [2016]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483; see Correction Law § 168-o [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convine- *1011 ing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Palladino, 137 AD3d at 1099; People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application.

Leventhal, J.P., Miller, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated May 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

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

On May 31, 2000, the defendant was convicted of one count of rape in the third degree, and sentenced to a term of five years probation. At that time, the defendant was also designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. In 2012, the defendant made an application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk classification from level three to level one. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application, and we affirm.

Correction Law § 168-o (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478, 483 [2015]; People v Palladino, 137 AD3d 1098 [2016]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483; see Correction Law § 168-o [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convine- *1011 ing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Palladino, 137 AD3d at 1099; People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application.

Leventhal, J.P., Miller, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 7941, 144 A.D.3d 1010, 40 N.Y.S.3d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hayden-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack