People v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Price

2017 NY Slip Op 1720, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 725

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2017

Docket2016-02240

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1720 (People v. Price) 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. Price, 2017 NY Slip Op 1720, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated February 16, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, the parole officer, or the corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571-573; People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d 794 [2016]; People v Morrell, 139 AD3d 835 [2016]; People v Sanchez, 136 AD3d 1007 [2016]). Presentence reports meet the reliable hearsay standards for admissibility at SORA proceedings (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 573; People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d at 794).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse). The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, including the defendant’s statements in the presentence report (see People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d at 794; People v Morrell, 139 AD3d at 836; People v Palacios, 137 AD3d 761, 762 [2016]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; cf. People v Palmer, 20 NY3d 373 [2013]).

Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, 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 February 16, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant’s admissions, the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, the parole officer, or the corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 571-573; People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d 794 [2016]; People v Morrell, 139 AD3d 835 [2016]; People v Sanchez, 136 AD3d 1007 [2016]). Presentence reports meet the reliable hearsay standards for admissibility at SORA proceedings (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 573; People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d at 794).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly assessed him 15 points under risk factor 11 (drug or alcohol abuse). The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, including the defendant’s statements in the presentence report (see People v Villanueva, 143 AD3d at 794; People v Morrell, 139 AD3d at 836; People v Palacios, 137 AD3d 761, 762 [2016]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; cf. People v Palmer, 20 NY3d 373 [2013]).

Accordingly, the County Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1720, 148 A.D.3d 847, 48 N.Y.S.3d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-price-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack