People v. Tooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tooley

84 A.D.3d 1752, 922 N.Y.S.2d 840

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

DecidedMay 6, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 A.D.3d 1752 (People v. Tooley) 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. Tooley, 84 A.D.3d 1752, 922 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), dated January 28, 2010. 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.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly determined that an upward departure from his presumptive risk level was warranted. During the presentence investigation interview, defendant admitted that he had previously sexually abused two other individuals who were not victims with respect to the underlying conviction, and that aggravating factor was not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines. Thus, the upward departure that resulted in defendant’s classification as a level three risk is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]; People v Farrell, 78 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; People v McCollum, 41 AD3d 1187 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]; see also People v Cummings, 81 AD3d 1261 [2011]). Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), dated January 28, 2010. 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.). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court properly determined that an upward departure from his presumptive risk level was warranted. During the presentence investigation interview, defendant admitted that he had previously sexually abused two other individuals who were not victims with respect to the underlying conviction, and that aggravating factor was not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines. Thus, the upward departure that resulted in defendant’s classification as a level three risk is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]; People v Farrell, 78 AD3d 1454, 1455 [2010]; People v McCollum, 41 AD3d 1187 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 807 [2007]; see also People v Cummings, 81 AD3d 1261 [2011]). Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A.D.3d 1752, 922 N.Y.S.2d 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tooley-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack