People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roman

41 A.D.3d 1288, 839 N.Y.S.2d 362

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

DecidedJune 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 A.D.3d 1288 (People v. Roman) 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. Roman, 41 A.D.3d 1288, 839 N.Y.S.2d 362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered December 16, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly relied on the case summary in determining his risk level. We have consistently held that case summaries constitute reliable hearsay (see e.g. People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]), and we decline defendant’s request that we revisit our prior decisions. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered December 16, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court properly relied on the case summary in determining his risk level. We have consistently held that case summaries constitute reliable hearsay (see e.g. People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]), and we decline defendant’s request that we revisit our prior decisions. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.3d 1288, 839 N.Y.S.2d 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roman-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack