Opinion
2014-10-15
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Jose M. AMAYA, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anne E. Oh of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anne E. Oh of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated March 30, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Correction Law § 168–n(3) requires a court making a risk level determination pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( see Correction Law art. 6–C; hereinafter SORA) to “render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168–n[3] ). Here, the County Court did not adequately set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order. Nevertheless, since the record is sufficient for this Court to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, remittal is not required ( see People v. Fitzpatrick, 120 A.D.3d 565, 990 N.Y.S.2d 838; People v. Grubbs, 107 A.D.3d 771, 772, 967 N.Y.S.2d 112; People v. Lacewell, 103 A.D.3d 784, 784–785, 962 N.Y.S.2d 193; People v. Finizio, 100 A.D.3d 977, 954 N.Y.S.2d 636).
On the record before us, we conclude that the County Court's designation of the defendant as a level two sex offender under SORA was supported by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law article 6–C; People v. Smith, 108 A.D.3d 514, 967 N.Y.S.2d 841; People v. Geehreng, 101 A.D.3d 975, 955 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Lattimore, 57 A.D.3d 752, 871 N.Y.S.2d 204).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.