People v. Tilley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tilley

138 A.D.3d 547, 28 N.Y.S.3d 590

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

DecidedApril 19, 2016

Docket854 1002/86 5899/86

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 547 (People v. Tilley) 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. Tilley, 138 A.D.3d 547, 28 N.Y.S.3d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, *548 Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2014, which denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-o (2) petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming without deciding that the order is appealable, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying any modification of defendant’s level three classification. The underlying sex crimes, several of which involved children, were both numerous and egregious, and defendant has not established that the mitigating factors he cites, such as his age and the absence of postrelease sex crimes, presently warrant a modification.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, *548 Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2014, which denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-o (2) petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming without deciding that the order is appealable, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying any modification of defendant’s level three classification. The underlying sex crimes, several of which involved children, were both numerous and egregious, and defendant has not established that the mitigating factors he cites, such as his age and the absence of postrelease sex crimes, presently warrant a modification.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 547, 28 N.Y.S.3d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tilley-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack