People v. Mendez

45 A.D.3d 429, 844 N.Y.S.2d 868
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Mendez. Read the opinion of the Court — 34 A.D.3d 697

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), entered on or about August 5, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the three risk factors that defendant challenges on appeal. The court based its findings concerning the underlying facts of defendant’s conviction on “reliable hearsay evidence” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see also People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

People v. Mendez, 45 A.D.3d 429, 844 N.Y.S.2d 868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

45 A.D.3d 429 (People v. Mendez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Dort
18 A.D.3d 23 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)