People v. Niola
This text of 50 A.D.3d 991 (People v. Niola) 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
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan J.), dated March 28, 2007, 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.
[992]*992There was clear and convincing evidence to support the designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Leeks, 43 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2007]; People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634, 635 [2007]; People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880 [2007]; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404 [2005]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed certain points under the risk assessment instrument, or that he was otherwise entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level three designation (see People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662 [2006]; People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515 [2006]; People v Lombard, 30 AD3d 573, 574 [2006]; see also People v Stevens, 48 AD3d 536 [2008]; People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 634 [2007]; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Ritter, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 A.D.3d 991, 854 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-niola-nyappdiv-2008.