People v. Palladino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palladino

137 A.D.3d 1098, 26 N.Y.S.3d 874

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

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

Docket2014-06219

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1098 (People v. Palladino) 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. Palladino, 137 A.D.3d 1098, 26 N.Y.S.3d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 30, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Palladino, 260 AD2d 506 [1999]). After serving a term of imprisonment, the defendant was designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C (see People v Palladino, 46 AD3d 864 [2007]). The defendant subsequently moved, pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2), for a modification of his risk level classification from level three to level two. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, and we affirm.

*1099 Correction Law § 168-0 (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478, 483 [2015]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483; see Correction Law § I68-0 [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]; see generally People v Willis, 130 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2015]; People v McCollum, 83 AD3d 1504, 1504-1505 [2011]; People v Cullen, 79AD3d 1677, 1677 [2010]; People v Higgins, 55 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2008]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied his motion.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Barros, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 30, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Palladino, 260 AD2d 506 [1999]). After serving a term of imprisonment, the defendant was designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C (see People v Palladino, 46 AD3d 864 [2007]). The defendant subsequently moved, pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2), for a modification of his risk level classification from level three to level two. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, and we affirm.

*1099 Correction Law § 168-0 (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478, 483 [2015]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483; see Correction Law § I68-0 [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]; see generally People v Willis, 130 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2015]; People v McCollum, 83 AD3d 1504, 1504-1505 [2011]; People v Cullen, 79AD3d 1677, 1677 [2010]; People v Higgins, 55 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2008]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied his motion.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1098, 26 N.Y.S.3d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palladino-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack