People v. Newman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Newman

71 A.D.3d 488, 899 N.Y.S.2d 144

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 488 (People v. Newman) 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. Newman, 71 A.D.3d 488, 899 N.Y.S.2d 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2008, which, upon reargument of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 5, 2008, adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), modified the prior order only to the extent of reducing defendant’s presumptive risk level to level two, but departing upward to level three, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of August 5, 2008 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of October 30, 2008.

Regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score would make him a presumptive risk level one or two offender, a discretionary upward departure to level three is warranted by aggravating factors. The risk assessment instrument did not adequately account for the seriousness of defendant’s criminal record, which consisted of a lengthy pattern of sexual offenses against children, demonstrating a very high risk of reoffending (see e.g. People v Sullivan, 46 AD3d 285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 704 [2008]).

We also reject defendant’s arguments concerning certain point assessments made by the court in determining that he is a presumptive level two offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about October 30, 2008, which, upon reargument of a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 5, 2008, adjudicating defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), modified the prior order only to the extent of reducing defendant’s presumptive risk level to level two, but departing upward to level three, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the order of August 5, 2008 unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the order of October 30, 2008.

Regardless of whether defendant’s correct point score would make him a presumptive risk level one or two offender, a discretionary upward departure to level three is warranted by aggravating factors. The risk assessment instrument did not adequately account for the seriousness of defendant’s criminal record, which consisted of a lengthy pattern of sexual offenses against children, demonstrating a very high risk of reoffending (see e.g. People v Sullivan, 46 AD3d 285 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 704 [2008]).

We also reject defendant’s arguments concerning certain point assessments made by the court in determining that he is a presumptive level two offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 488, 899 N.Y.S.2d 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-newman-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack