People v. King

80 A.D.3d 681, 914 N.Y.S.2d 671

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated June 6, 2007, as, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In establishing a defendant’s risk level assessment pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing the facts supporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 5 [2006]; People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880 [2010]; People v Chambers, 66 AD3d 748 [2009]; People v Bright, 63 AD3d 1133, 1134 [2009]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 because he was a stranger to the victim within the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (see People v Britt, 66 AD3d 853, 853 [2009]; People v Milton, 55 AD3d 1073 [2008]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]; People v Kaminski, 38 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2007]; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006]; compare People v Helmer, 65 AD3d 68 [2009]; People v McGraw, 24 AD3d 525, 526 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly designated the defendant a level two sex offender. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.