People v. Shellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shellman

134 A.D.3d 517, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

Docket16412 30114/13

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 517 (People v. Shellman) 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. Shellman, 134 A.D.3d 517, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the guidelines, or did not warrant a downward departure given the seriousness of the underlying conduct, in which defendant abused his position of authority by repeatedly engaging in sexual activity with his 13-year-old dance student (see e.g. People v Brown, 122 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 915 [2015]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), entered on or about August 20, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the guidelines, or did not warrant a downward departure given the seriousness of the underlying conduct, in which defendant abused his position of authority by repeatedly engaging in sexual activity with his 13-year-old dance student (see e.g. People v Brown, 122 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 915 [2015]). Concur— Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 517, 20 N.Y.S.3d 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shellman-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack