People v. Ramroop
This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 04883 (People v. Ramroop) 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
| People v Ramroop |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 04883 |
| Decided on September 2, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on September 2, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
2018-13692
v
Gouchand Ramroop, appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Steven J. Miraglia of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard Buchter, J.), dated October 11, 2018, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Following a hearing to determine the defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), the Supreme Court assessed 60 points, including 15 points for not accepting responsibility, against the defendant. The court designated the defendant a level one sex offender. The defendant appeals, arguing that the court should not have assessed points against him for not accepting responsibility.
The issue the defendant raises is academic under these circumstances since he will remain a level one sex offender even if he should have received a lower numerical score under the SORA guidelines (see People v Avalo, ___ AD3d ___, 2020 NY Slip Op 04599 [2d Dept]; People v Belter, 84 AD3d 905, 906; see also People v Hannah, 170 AD3d 1053, 1054; People v Johnson, 168 AD3d 1110; People v Pratt, 121 AD3d 462, 463).
MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2020 NY Slip Op 04883, 127 N.Y.S.3d 903, 186 A.D.3d 1275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramroop-nyappdiv-2020.