From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Atkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 2006
34 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-02255.

November 14, 2006.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated February 15, 2005, which, without a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.


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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence submitted by the People established, by clear and convincing evidence ( see Correction Law § 168-k), including reliable hearsay ( id.), the existence of facts sufficient to support the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that the defendant be classified as a level three sex offender ( see People v Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675 [2006]; People v Terdeman, 175 Misc 2d 379).


Summaries of

People v. Atkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 2006
34 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Atkinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEPHEN ATKINSON…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 2006

Citations

34 A.D.3d 551 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 8229
823 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

People v. Rouff

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