Opinion
10-16-2024
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Ervin JIMENEZ, appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Mark J. Ermmarino of counsel), for appellant. Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Jamie H. Greenwood and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Mark J. Ermmarino of counsel), for appellant.
Raymond A. Tierney, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Jamie H. Greenwood and Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, WILLIAM G. FORD, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), dated January 25, 2023, which, after a hearing, designated the defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the defendant was assessed 105 points on the risk assessment instrument, rendering him a presumptive level two sex offender. The defendant did not request a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and in an order dated January 25, 2023, the County Court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. The defendant appeals.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 and 15 points under risk factor 14. The defendant does not contest the remaining 80 points that the County Court assessed or request a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. Even if the 25 points that the defendant challenges on appeal are subtracted from his risk factor score, he would still remain a presumptive level two sex offender. Thus, the defendant’s contentions on appeal are academic and need not be reached (see People v. Cousin, 209 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 177 N.Y.S.3d 151; People v. Guerro-Bueso, 203 A.D.3d 1184, 1184, 163 N.Y.S.3d 422; People v. Leung, 191 A.D.3d 1023, 1023–1024, 142 N.Y.S.3d 95; see also Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co. v. Austin Powder Co., 68 N.Y.2d 465, 472-473, 510 N.Y.S.2d 67, 502 N.E.2d 982; Parochial Bus Sys. v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. 60 N.Y.2d 539, 545, 470 N.Y.S.2d 564, 458 N.E.2d 1241; TAL Props. of Pomona, LLC v. Village of Pomona, 221 A.D.3d 1038, 1039, 201 N.Y.S.3d 445). Since the defendant has not provided a basis for reversal or modification of the order appealed from, the order appealed from must be affirmed.
LASALLE, P.J., IANNACCI, FORD and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.