People v. Street

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Street

74 A.D.3d 768, 901 N.Y.S.2d 536

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

DecidedJune 1, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 768 (People v. Street) 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. Street, 74 A.D.3d 768, 901 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated July 9, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the Supreme Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880 [2007]; People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]; see also People v Mingo, [769]*76912 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in assessing him 15 points under risk factor 11 (“Drug or Alcohol Abuse”) (see People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832 [2009]; People v Banks, 48 AD3d 656 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Austin, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), dated July 9, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the Supreme Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender (see People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880 [2007]; People v Guarnan, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]; see also People v Mingo, [769]*76912 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in assessing him 15 points under risk factor 11 (“Drug or Alcohol Abuse”) (see People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832 [2009]; People v Banks, 48 AD3d 656 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 768, 901 N.Y.S.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-street-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack