People v. Runko
This text of 105 A.D.3d 927 (People v. Runko) 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
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 12, 2012, which, without a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.
[928]*928Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion.
By notice of motion dated September 21, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing. Because the requisite procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o were not followed, we reverse.
As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s motion, as it was required to do pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (4) (see People v Hazen, 103 AD3d 943 [2013]; People v Lashway, 90 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2011]; see also People v Damato, 58 AD3d 819, 821 [2009]). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
105 A.D.3d 927, 962 N.Y.S.2d 911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-runko-nyappdiv-2013.