People v. Mohabeer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mohabeer

5 A.D.3d 650, 774 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3416

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 650 (People v. Mohabeer) 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. Mohabeer, 5 A.D.3d 650, 774 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), dated June 29, 2001, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The People presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination designating the defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender [651]*651Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]; People v Stores, 300 AD2d 554, 555 [2002]; People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), dated June 29, 2001, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The People presented clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination designating the defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender [651]*651Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Hampton, 300 AD2d 641 [2002]; People v Stores, 300 AD2d 554, 555 [2002]; People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Goldstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 650, 774 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mohabeer-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack