People v. Pressey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pressey

124 A.D.3d 1320, 997 N.Y.S.2d 582

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.3d 1320 (People v. Pressey) 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. Pressey, 124 A.D.3d 1320, 997 N.Y.S.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), entered October 10, 2013. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not deny him due process of law by relying solely on the case summary for its determination to assess 20 points for category 13, conduct while confined. The case summary stated that defendant had 38 “more serious Tier III” infractions, which included assault, weapon possession, arson and lewd conduct, a sex offense. Defendant failed to contest the underlying facts contained in the report, and thus his contention that the court violated his due process rights by relying solely upon the case summary is without merit (see People v Okafor, 117 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 902 [2014]; People v Vaillancourt, 112 AD3d 1375, 1375-1376 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 864 [2014]; cf. People v Judson, 50 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2008]).

Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), entered October 10, 2013. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not deny him due process of law by relying solely on the case summary for its determination to assess 20 points for category 13, conduct while confined. The case summary stated that defendant had 38 “more serious Tier III” infractions, which included assault, weapon possession, arson and lewd conduct, a sex offense. Defendant failed to contest the underlying facts contained in the report, and thus his contention that the court violated his due process rights by relying solely upon the case summary is without merit (see People v Okafor, 117 AD3d 1579, 1580 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 902 [2014]; People v Vaillancourt, 112 AD3d 1375, 1375-1376 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 864 [2014]; cf. People v Judson, 50 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2008]).

Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 1320, 997 N.Y.S.2d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pressey-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack