People v. Lisiel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lisiel

72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 452

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

DecidedApril 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.3d 527 (People v. Lisiel) 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. Lisiel, 72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three adjudication. The court properly assessed 15 points under the factor for lack of supervised release (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]), and there is no merit to defendant’s argument that the SORA registration requirements themselves constitute a form of supervision. Since these points, when added to points that defendant does not contest, qualify him as a level three offender, we need not reach defendant’s other claims. In any event, we find those claims unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factors bearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three adjudication. The court properly assessed 15 points under the factor for lack of supervised release (see People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]), and there is no merit to defendant’s argument that the SORA registration requirements themselves constitute a form of supervision. Since these points, when added to points that defendant does not contest, qualify him as a level three offender, we need not reach defendant’s other claims. In any event, we find those claims unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 527, 898 N.Y.S.2d 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lisiel-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack