People v. Walter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walter

100 A.D.3d 1442, 953 N.Y.S.2d 535

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Barry M. Donalty, A.J.), entered August 8, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

[1443] It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in considering unreliable hearsay when making its SORA determination. “Because defendant’s evidentiary objection[s] . . . [were] made on a different ground than the ‘unreliable hearsay’ ground he raises on appeal, his contention that the court erred in [considering the challenged] evidence is not preserved for our review” (People v Law, 94 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 809 [2012]; see People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1273-1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]; People v Smith, 17 AD3d 1045, 1045 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 705 [2005]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Barry M. Donalty, A.J.), entered August 8, 2011. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

[1443] It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in considering unreliable hearsay when making its SORA determination. “Because defendant’s evidentiary objection[s] . . . [were] made on a different ground than the ‘unreliable hearsay’ ground he raises on appeal, his contention that the court erred in [considering the challenged] evidence is not preserved for our review” (People v Law, 94 AD3d 1561, 1562 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 809 [2012]; see People v Wragg, 41 AD3d 1273, 1273-1274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 809 [2007]; People v Smith, 17 AD3d 1045, 1045 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 705 [2005]). Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

People v. Walter, 100 A.D.3d 1442, 953 N.Y.S.2d 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

100 A.D.3d 1442 (People v. Walter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related