People v. Stahl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stahl

83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 528

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

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1028 (People v. Stahl) 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. Stahl, 83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level two risk assessment. The defendant failed to show the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure (see People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]; People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant a level two sex offender. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated June 5, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive level two risk assessment. The defendant failed to show the existence of special circumstances warranting a downward departure (see People v Mendez, 79 AD3d 834 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 704 [2011]; People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]). Accordingly, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant a level two sex offender. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1028, 921 N.Y.S.2d 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stahl-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack