Opinion
08-02-2017
PEOPLE of the State of New York, respondent, v. Daniel PILOZO, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Ronald Alfano of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Ronald Alfano of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), dated August 17, 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.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 20 points against him under risk factor 4 for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct. The assessment of these points was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record, including the defendant's admission recorded in the presentence report that the conduct occurred over a period of about one month (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 863–864, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 ; People v. Alas, 140 A.D.3d 841, 35 N.Y.S.3d 112 ; People v. Lowery, 140 A.D.3d 1141, 35 N.Y.S.3d 684 ; People v. Williams, 34 A.D.3d 662, 824 N.Y.S.2d 413 ).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level designation, as he failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a mitigating factor of a kind or to a degree that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C) Guidelines (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006]; People v. Moultrie, 147 A.D.3d 800, 801, 45 N.Y.S.3d 590 ; People v. Simmons, 146 A.D.3d 912, 45 N.Y.S.3d 535 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HALL, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.