People v. Rosado

88 A.D.3d 974, 931 N.Y.2d 526
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk level and, thus, properly designated him a level two sex offender (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112 [2011]; People v Livingston, 87 AD3d 628 [2011]; People v Alston, 86 AD3d 553; 554 [2011]; People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 596, 597 [2009]; People v Adams, 44 AD3d 1020 [2007]; People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007]; cf. People v Stevens, 55 AD3d 892, 894 [2008]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rosado, 88 A.D.3d 974, 931 N.Y.2d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

88 A.D.3d 974 (People v. Rosado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Martin
90 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)