From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 18, 2017
154 A.D.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

10-18-2017

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Darrell SMITH, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Ronald Alfano of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.


Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Ronald Alfano of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ozzi, J.), dated January 13, 2016, which denied his petition 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.

Correction Law § 168–o(2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art. 6–C) to petition annually for modification of his or her 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. McClinton, 153 A.D.3d 738, 739, 61 N.Y.S.3d 57 ; People v. Hayden, 144 A.D.3d 1010, 1010, 40 N.Y.S.3d 917 ; People v. Palladino, 137 A.D.3d 1098, 1099, 26 N.Y.S.3d 874 ; People v. Wyatt, 89 A.D.3d 112, 125, 931 N.Y.S.2d 85 ). "The sex offender shall bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence" ( Correction Law § 168–o[2] ; see People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d at 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 ; People v. McClinton, 153 A.D.3d at 739, 61 N.Y.S.3d 57 ; People v. Hayden, 144 A.D.3d at 1010, 40 N.Y.S.3d 917; People v. Palladino, 137 A.D.3d at 1099, 27 N.Y.S.3d 686 ). Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's petition.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Oct 18, 2017
154 A.D.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Darrell SMITH, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Oct 18, 2017

Citations

154 A.D.3d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
62 N.Y.S.3d 275

Citing Cases

People v. Springs

The defendant appeals. Pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2), a sex offender required to register under the…

People v. Springs

Pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2), a sex offender required to register under the Sex Offender…