Opinion
02-16-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andrew POSTELLI, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Lauren Stephens–Davidowitz of counsel), for appellant. Andrew Postelli, appellant pro se. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Lee M. Pollack of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Lauren Stephens–Davidowitz of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew Postelli, appellant pro se.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Lee M. Pollack of counsel), for respondent.
TOM, J.P., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), entered on or about September 17, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Clear and convincing evidence supported the court's assessment of 20 points for the relationship (strangers) between defendant and the victim. A finding that the parties were strangers was supported by evidence that their connection was limited to minimal communication on occasions when defendant encountered the homeless victim on the street (see People v. Ramsey, 124 A.D.3d 472, 998 N.Y.S.2d 384 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 903, 2015 WL 1526410 [2015] ; People v. Tejada, 51 A.D.3d 472, 857 N.Y.S.2d 558 [1st Dept.2008] ). Alternatively, the evidence supported a reasonable inference, constituting clear and convincing evidence on the facts presented, that any relationship was established by defendant for the primary purpose of victimization (see id. ).
The case summary was sufficient, by itself, to support the court's assessment of points for defendant's conduct while confined, and defendant presents no basis to reject the statements in the case summary (see People v. Irizarry, 124 A.D.3d 429, 998 N.Y.S.2d 379 [1st Dept.2015], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 907, 10 N.Y.S.3d 527, 32 N.E.3d 964 [2015] ). Defendant's contention that he was deprived of due process by the timing of the People's disclosure of prison records that supported the case summary is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As any alternative holding, we find that any error was harmless.
We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.