From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Harripersaud

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Oct 21, 2021
No. 2021-05784 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 2021)

Opinion

2021-05784 Ind 2606/12

10-21-2021

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ishri Harripersaud, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 14426 No. 2019-5491

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nicole P. Geoglis of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Robert C. McIver of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Nicole P. Geoglis of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Robert C. McIver of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Kern, Oing, Kennedy, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about June 21, 2019, which adjudicated defendant a level two offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly assessed 20 points under the risk factor for defendant's relationship (strangers) with the victim, because they only met within 24 hours of the crime (see People v Barcliff, 165 A.D.3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 917 [2019]), regardless of any subsequent relationship. The victim's sworn trial testimony, subject to cross-examination, established this fact by clear and convincing evidence, notwithstanding inconsistent, and apparently erroneous, information located in certain documents.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841 [2014]). Defendant's lack of prior criminal history, participation in sex offender treatment, record of good behavior while incarcerated, and support network (to the extent relevant) were adequately taken into account by the guidelines. Defendant has not demonstrated that his rehabilitation or response to sex offender treatment were "so exemplary or exceptional" as to warrant a departure (People v Gomez, 192 A.D.3d 602, 602 [1st Dept 2021]) or that his age (53 at the time of the hearing) renders recidivism unlikely (see e.g. People v Rivera, 188 A.D.3d 609, 609 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 910 [2021]). Defendant's reliance on the apparently "consensual" nature of the crime (but for the victim's inability to consent by virtue of age) is also unavailing, because of the significant age difference between the 45-year-old defendant and 13-year-old victim (see e.g. People v Mendoza, 123 A.D.3d 417, 417 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 915 [2015]).


Summaries of

People v. Harripersaud

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Oct 21, 2021
No. 2021-05784 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 2021)
Case details for

People v. Harripersaud

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ishri Harripersaud…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 2021

Citations

No. 2021-05784 (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 2021)