People v. Wilson

53 A.D.3d 1121, 859 N.Y.S.2d 884

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), entered August 6, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that she is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that she was denied her right to due process because County Court failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Correction Law § 168-d (3). That contention is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Smith, 17 AD3d 1045 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 705 [2005]; People v Burgess, 6 AD3d 686 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 604 [2004]). Contrary to the further contentions of defendant, the court properly “render[ed] an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations [were] based” (§ 168-d [3]; see People v Millar, 45 AD3d 1329, 1330 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 701 [2008]), and the court’s determination that defendant is a level two risk is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra, Lunn, Fahey and Pine, JJ.