People v. Hosear

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hosear

2017 NY Slip Op 4364, 151 A.D.3d 416, 52 N.Y.S.3d 858

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

DecidedJune 1, 2017

Docket4146 9335/91

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4364 (People v. Hosear) 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. Hosear, 2017 NY Slip Op 4364, 151 A.D.3d 416, 52 N.Y.S.3d 858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2015, which denied defendant’s petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to meet his burden under Correction Law § 168-0 of presenting clear and convincing evidence that a downward modification of his risk level is warranted (see People v Torres, 120 AD3d 1126 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 911 [2014]). Defendant did not establish a prolonged abstinence from substance abuse, because all but a relatively short portion of the period he cites occurred while he was incarcerated (see People v Birch, 99 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 854 [2012]). Defendant likewise failed to establish that his medical problems render him unlikely to commit any kind of sex offenses (see e.g. People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1274 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Among other things, even during hospital treatment defendant has recently engaged in lewd acts toward nurses.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to adjourn the proceeding, and the lack of an adjournment had no effect on the court’s determination.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2015, which denied defendant’s petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to meet his burden under Correction Law § 168-0 of presenting clear and convincing evidence that a downward modification of his risk level is warranted (see People v Torres, 120 AD3d 1126 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 911 [2014]). Defendant did not establish a prolonged abstinence from substance abuse, because all but a relatively short portion of the period he cites occurred while he was incarcerated (see People v Birch, 99 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 854 [2012]). Defendant likewise failed to establish that his medical problems render him unlikely to commit any kind of sex offenses (see e.g. People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1274 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Among other things, even during hospital treatment defendant has recently engaged in lewd acts toward nurses.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to adjourn the proceeding, and the lack of an adjournment had no effect on the court’s determination.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4364, 151 A.D.3d 416, 52 N.Y.S.3d 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hosear-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack