People v. Zaire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zaire

123 A.D.3d 641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 78

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13873 5369/82

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.3d 641 (People v. Zaire) 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. Zaire, 123 A.D.3d 641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 78 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about December 18, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed points under the risk factor for the victim’s physical helplessness during the rape, because she was handcuffed and her mouth was taped shut, rendering her unable to communicate consent (see Penal Law § 130.00 [7]; People v Teicher, 52 NY2d 638, 649 [1981]). The court also properly assessed points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, including sexual misconduct, since reliable documents showed defendant engaged in an act of lewdness directed at a female officer, as well as committing many other infractions (see People v Birch, 99 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 854 [2012]). To the extent defendant is challenging any other point assessments, we find those challenges unavailing.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant, including his age (mid 50s) and lack of a prior criminal record, do not warrant a downward departure in light of the seriousness of the underlying offense, which was a heinous crime of predatory violence.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), entered on or about December 18, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed points under the risk factor for the victim’s physical helplessness during the rape, because she was handcuffed and her mouth was taped shut, rendering her unable to communicate consent (see Penal Law § 130.00 [7]; People v Teicher, 52 NY2d 638, 649 [1981]). The court also properly assessed points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, including sexual misconduct, since reliable documents showed defendant engaged in an act of lewdness directed at a female officer, as well as committing many other infractions (see People v Birch, 99 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 854 [2012]). To the extent defendant is challenging any other point assessments, we find those challenges unavailing.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant, including his age (mid 50s) and lack of a prior criminal record, do not warrant a downward departure in light of the seriousness of the underlying offense, which was a heinous crime of predatory violence.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 641, 999 N.Y.S.2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zaire-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack