People v. Sutton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sutton

19 A.D.3d 1045, 796 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222

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

DecidedJune 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 A.D.3d 1045 (People v. Sutton) 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. Sutton, 19 A.D.3d 1045, 796 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J), entered November 13, 2003. 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 be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The record establishes that defendant engaged in a continuous course of sexual misconduct and did not complete treatment because of a disciplinary problem. Consequently, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]; People v Barnwell, 6 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J), entered November 13, 2003. 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 be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The record establishes that defendant engaged in a continuous course of sexual misconduct and did not complete treatment because of a disciplinary problem. Consequently, we conclude that the court’s determination is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]; People v Barnwell, 6 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 1045, 796 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sutton-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack