Summary
In People v Leopold (13 NY3d 923 [2010]), we found, under somewhat similar circumstances, that the Appellate Division should be reversed because it failed to set forth the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Correction Law § 168-n (3).
Summary of this case from People v. BrabhamOpinion
No. 58 SSM 61.
Decided January 14, 2010.
APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered June 5, 2009. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, J.), which had determined that defendant was a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
People v Leopold, 63 AD3d 1631, reversed.
Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo ( Vincent F. Gugino and David C. Schopp of counsel), for appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo ( Matthew B. Powers and Donna A. Milling of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
Correction Law § 168-n (3) requires the court fixing a sex offender's risk level determination to "render an order setting forth . . . the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based." Here, neither the Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division order set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying the risk level determination. We therefore remit this case to Supreme Court to specify its findings of fact and conclusions of law ( see People v Smith, 11 NY3d 797, 798).
In memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.