People v. Vazquez

1 Citing case

  1. People v. Young

    186 A.D.3d 1546 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 34 times

    v. Burrowes, 177 A.D.3d at 1007, 113 N.Y.S.3d 264 ; People v. Kotzen, 100 A.D.3d 1162, 1163, 954 N.Y.S.2d 237 ), or did not warrant a downward departure to avoid an overassessment of his dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism (seePeople v. McKinney, 173 A.D.3d 1074, 1075, 100 N.Y.S.3d 353 ; People v. Somodi, 170 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 94 N.Y.S.3d 586 ; People v. Jonas, 168 A.D.3d 775, 775–776, 89 N.Y.S.3d 633 ). Although the defendant contends that his SOCTP treatment records were confidential and should not have been admitted into evidence over his counsel's objection at the SORA hearing, any error that may have occurred in the admission of the SOCTP records with regard to the assessment of points under risk factor 7 was harmless because, as we stated above, disregarding the SOCTP records entirely, the other evidence presented by the People provided ample basis for the Supreme Court's determination as to that risk factor (seePeople v. O'Connor, 156 A.D.3d at 442, 64 N.Y.S.3d 536 ; People v. Vazquez, 148 A.D.3d 601, 602, 50 N.Y.S.3d 347 ), and because the records were otherwise irrelevant given the application of the automatic override to a presumptive level three sex offender designation based on the defendant's prior felony sex crime conviction and the defendant's failure to establish the existence of mitigating circumstances. The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.