People v. Snow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Snow

103 A.D.3d 1150, 958 N.Y.S.2d 638

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 1150 (People v. Snow) 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. Snow, 103 A.D.3d 1150, 958 N.Y.S.2d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered March 17, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a downward modification of his presumptive risk level. We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure (see People v Jefferson, 74 AD3d 1756, 1756 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 709 [2010]; People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Present—Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.

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

from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank E Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered March 17, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that Supreme Court erred in denying his request for a downward modification of his presumptive risk level. We reject that contention inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure (see People v Jefferson, 74 AD3d 1756, 1756 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 709 [2010]; People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]). Present—Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 1150, 958 N.Y.S.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-snow-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack