From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Correnti

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2015
134 A.D.3d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

12-29-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony CORRENTI, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Lauren Springer of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Lauren Springer of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Dana Poole of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 24, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, particularly since one of defendant's tier III infractions suggested a specific risk of reoffense.

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ). The cited mitigating factors were adequately taken into account by the guidelines, or were outweighed by the seriousness and extent of defendant's sex crimes against children.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, ANDRIAS, RICHTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Correnti

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 29, 2015
134 A.D.3d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Correnti

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony CORRENTI…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 29, 2015

Citations

134 A.D.3d 635 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 9612
21 N.Y.S.3d 613

Citing Cases

People v. Correnti

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed him 10 points under risk factor 13…