People v. Larwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Larwood

34 A.D.3d 1345, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748

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

DecidedNovember 17, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 1345 (People v. Larwood) 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. Larwood, 34 A.D.3d 1345, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J), dated May 24, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant was afforded the opportunity to controvert the evidence upon which the People relied, and the court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-d [3]; People v Kwiatkowski, 24 AD 3d 878, 879 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ.,Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J), dated May 24, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant was afforded the opportunity to controvert the evidence upon which the People relied, and the court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-d [3]; People v Kwiatkowski, 24 AD 3d 878, 879 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ.,Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 1345, 823 N.Y.S.2d 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-larwood-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack