People v. Zapata

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zapata

83 A.D.3d 606, 920 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedApril 28, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.3d 606 (People v. Zapata) 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. Zapata, 83 A.D.3d 606, 920 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2009, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the adjudication to that of a level one sex offender, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court incorrectly assessed 15 points under the risk factor of history of substance abuse, since the People’s proof in relation to this factor did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard (see People v Irizarry, 36 AD3d 473 [2007]). Without the improperly assessed points, defendant qualifies as a level one offender. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), entered on or about April 27, 2009, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the adjudication to that of a level one sex offender, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court incorrectly assessed 15 points under the risk factor of history of substance abuse, since the People’s proof in relation to this factor did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard (see People v Irizarry, 36 AD3d 473 [2007]). Without the improperly assessed points, defendant qualifies as a level one offender. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 606, 920 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zapata-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack