People v. Vansteen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vansteen

140 A.D.3d 721, 30 N.Y.S.3d 887

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

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2015-05064

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 721 (People v. Vansteen) 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. Vansteen, 140 A.D.3d 721, 30 N.Y.S.3d 887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 15, 2015, 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.

After a hearing conducted pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the defendant, who was convicted of possessing a sexual performance by a child less than 16 years of age, in violation of Penal Law § 263.16, was properly assessed points based upon the fact that his victims were strangers to him, and based upon the number of victims (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 859 [2014]; People v Morel-Baca, 127 AD3d 833 [2015]). Moreover, his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level was properly denied (see People v Stewart, 123 AD3d 784 [2014]; People v Pendleton, 112 AD3d 600, 601 [2013]).

Leventhal, J.P, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, 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 May 15, 2015, 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.

After a hearing conducted pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the defendant, who was convicted of possessing a sexual performance by a child less than 16 years of age, in violation of Penal Law § 263.16, was properly assessed points based upon the fact that his victims were strangers to him, and based upon the number of victims (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 859 [2014]; People v Morel-Baca, 127 AD3d 833 [2015]). Moreover, his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level was properly denied (see People v Stewart, 123 AD3d 784 [2014]; People v Pendleton, 112 AD3d 600, 601 [2013]).

Leventhal, J.P, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 721, 30 N.Y.S.3d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vansteen-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack