People v. Vega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vega

115 A.D.3d 461, 981 N.Y.S.2d 530

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 115 A.D.3d 461 (People v. Vega) 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. Vega, 115 A.D.3d 461, 981 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2013, which denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-o (2) petition to modify his sex offender classification from level two to level one, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish a basis for the requested modification. The factors cited by defendant, including his age (mid 40s), do not warrant a modification, particularly since the underlying sex crime was committed against a child (see People v Thomas, 105 AD3d 640 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d [462]*462863 [2013]). Although defendant cites the fact that he is in a long-term relationship, we note that he committed the underlying crime after that relationship had commenced. In addition, defendant had numerous conflicts with the law after the underlying crime, including drug convictions, and he failed to establish his success at drug treatment.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about January 17, 2013, which denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-o (2) petition to modify his sex offender classification from level two to level one, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish a basis for the requested modification. The factors cited by defendant, including his age (mid 40s), do not warrant a modification, particularly since the underlying sex crime was committed against a child (see People v Thomas, 105 AD3d 640 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d [462]*462863 [2013]). Although defendant cites the fact that he is in a long-term relationship, we note that he committed the underlying crime after that relationship had commenced. In addition, defendant had numerous conflicts with the law after the underlying crime, including drug convictions, and he failed to establish his success at drug treatment.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 461, 981 N.Y.S.2d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vega-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack