People v. Woods

41 A.D.3d 1299, 838 N.Y.S.2d 842
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank P Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered March 20, 2006. 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 be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

[1300]*1300Memorandum: 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 the contention of defendant, Supreme Court’s determination that he is a level three risk is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]), including the evidence of sexual misconduct with the 10-year-old victim and the year-long duration of that misconduct. Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly considered the case summary, which constitutes reliable hearsay, in determining defendant’s risk level (see id.; People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Vaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Fahey and Green, JJ.

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

People v. Woods, 41 A.D.3d 1299, 838 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

41 A.D.3d 1299 (People v. Woods) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ensell
49 A.D.3d 1301 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Lewis
45 A.D.3d 1381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)