From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Alvarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2005-05188.

March 18, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated April 8, 2005, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant's sex offender risk level pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki ( 3 F Supp 2d 456), designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.


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

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court's determination to designate the defendant a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, based on the facts and admissions contained in the pre-sentence investigation report, the case summary, and the risk assessment instrument of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ( see Correction Law § 168-n; People v Yarborough, 43 AD3d 1129, 1130, lv denied 9 NY3d 816; People v Penson, 38 AD3d 866, 867; People v Romana, 35 AD3d 1241; People v Carlton, 307 AD2d 763, 764).


Summaries of

People v. Alvarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 2008
49 A.D.3d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Alvarez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT ALVAREZ…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 704 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2566
852 N.Y.S.2d 845

Citing Cases

People v. White

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the defendant's contention,…

People v. Smith

The Supreme Court's compromise to assess 5 points rather than 10 or 0 for risk factor 12 frustrates the…