Opinion
03-23-2016
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Mauro PALLADINO, appellant.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas Constant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 30, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v. Palladino, 260 A.D.2d 506, 686 N.Y.S.2d 331 ). After serving a term of imprisonment, the defendant was designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C (see People v. Palladino, 46 A.D.3d 864, 850 N.Y.S.2d 468 ). The defendant subsequently moved, pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o (2), for a modification of his risk level classification from level three to level two. The County Court denied the defendant's motion, and we affirm.
Correction Law § 168–o (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6–C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d 478, 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 125, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). "The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence" (People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d at 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 ; see Correction Law § 168–o [2] ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d at 125, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ).
Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v. Johnson, 124 A.D.3d 495, 496, 1 N.Y.S.3d 103 ; People v. McFarland, 120 A.D.3d 1121, 1121, 992 N.Y.S.2d 414 ; People v. Wright, 78 A.D.3d 1437, 1438, 911 N.Y.S.2d 513 ; see generally People v. Willis, 130 A.D.3d 1470, 1471, 12 N.Y.S.3d 758 ; People v. McCollum, 83 A.D.3d 1504, 1504–1505, 921 N.Y.S.2d 576 ; People v. Cullen, 79 A.D.3d 1677, 1677, 917 N.Y.S.2d 447 ; People v. Higgins, 55 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 864 N.Y.S.2d 356 ). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied his motion.
MASTRO, J.P., DILLON, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.