From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2011
85 A.D.3d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2009-06195.

June 14, 2011.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), dated June 26, 2009, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Gamaliel Marrero on the brief), for respondent.

Before: Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Sgroi, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the Supreme Court's determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender ( see People v Fisher, 36 AD3d 880; People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from this risk level ( see People v Fareira, 80 AD3d 589; People v Burgess, 80 AD3d 589; People v Gonzalez, 48 AD3d 284; People v Warren, 42 AD3d 593; People v Fortin, 29 AD3d 765; see also People v Iorio, 74 AD3d 1306; People v Miller, 48 AD3d 774).


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2011
85 A.D.3d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KENARD SMITH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 14, 2011

Citations

85 A.D.3d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5250
925 N.Y.S.2d 335

Citing Cases

People v. Livingston

Moreover, the record on appeal permits meaningful appellate review of the propriety of the Supreme Court's…

People of State v. Livingston

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's order adequately sets forth the findings of fact…