People v. Morrison
This text of People v. Morrison (People v. Morrison) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Morrison
2026 NY Slip Op 02680
April 29, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Daniel Morrison, appellant. James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 29, 2026
2025-08431
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
William G. Ford
Helen Voutsinas
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Kerianne Morrissey of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), dated May 19, 2025, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, inter alia, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65[1]) and two counts of murder in the second degree (id. § 125.25[1], [3]). After a hearing conducted pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), the County Court applied an automatic override to a presumptive risk level three designation and designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appeals.
The defendant's contention that a downward departure from his presumptive risk level is warranted based on purported mitigating factors is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing (see People v Franco, 234 AD3d 723, 724; People v Pomavilla-Loja, 230 AD3d 1359, 1359). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure is warranted (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861; People v Godek, 237 AD3d 761, 762-763).
GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Morrison, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-morrison-nyappdiv-2026.