From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grabowski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 31, 2016
142 A.D.3d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

08-31-2016

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Bogdan GRABOWSKI, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Foley, J.), dated May 11, 2015, 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.

In determining a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), a downward departure from a sex offender's presumptive risk level generally is warranted only where there exists a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006) (hereinafter the Guidelines) (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Sanchez, 138 A.D.3d 946, 28 N.Y.S.3d 621 ; People v. Azeez, 138 A.D.3d 945, 28 N.Y.S.3d 617 ).

Here, nearly all of the mitigating circumstances identified by the defendant were adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v. DeDona, 102 A.D.3d 58, 71, 954 N.Y.S.2d 541 ; People v. Riverso, 96 A.D.3d 1533, 1534, 947 N.Y.S.2d 250 ). Moreover, to the extent the defendant established certain facts in support of mitigating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for a downward departure, and thus, properly designated him a level two sex offender (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d at 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ).

CHAMBERS, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Grabowski

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Aug 31, 2016
142 A.D.3d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Grabowski

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Bogdan GRABOWSKI, appellant.

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

Date published: Aug 31, 2016

Citations

142 A.D.3d 697 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
36 N.Y.S.3d 922
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 5912

Citing Cases

People v. Robinson

A court determining a defendant's risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art.…

People v. Destio

To the extent the defendant contends that a claimed over-assessment under risk factors 3 and 5 warrants a…