People v. Lalji

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lalji

133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 536

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2015

Docket16070 99047/13

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 427 (People v. Lalji) 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. Lalji, 133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered November 6, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d *428 841 [2014]). Defendant committed a pattern of sexual acts against a child, and, after his conviction, he repeatedly violated his probation. The 50-year-old defendant’s claim that his age minimizes his risk of reoffense is unpersuasive, and there were no other mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered November 6, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d *428 841 [2014]). Defendant committed a pattern of sexual acts against a child, and, after his conviction, he repeatedly violated his probation. The 50-year-old defendant’s claim that his age minimizes his risk of reoffense is unpersuasive, and there were no other mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the guidelines. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 427, 18 N.Y.S.3d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lalji-nyappdiv-2015.