At page 454 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), entered on or about June 25, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent…2 citing cases
- People v. Jacques (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2025).published Although at the end of the hearing, he asked the court to clarify whether it was denying a downward departure, defendant did not make arguments during the hearing specifically in support of a downward departure nor did he seek to further l…
- People v. Colon, 139 A.D.3d 466 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2016).publishedThe detailed case summary and felony complaint constituted reliable hearsay, and the court properly relied on them for proof of criminal conduct for which defendant was neither indicted nor convicted (see People v Johnson, 130 AD3d 454, 45…
At page 455 841, 861 n 5 [2014]). In any event, we find no basis for such a departure. As the People concede, a court making a redetermination under Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp…1 citing case
- People v. Wright, 208 A.D.3d 1112 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2022).published As the People concede, because this proceeding was a redetermination under Doe v Pataki ( 3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]), the court should not have made a sexually violent offender designation ( see People v Johnson , 130 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept…
v.
Curtis Johnson, Appellant
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), entered on or about June 25, 2013, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the designation as a sexually violent offender, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendant was properly adjudicated a level three sex offender. Clear and convincing evidence established that defendant was properly scored 30 points under the risk factor for number of victims (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]). The court properly considered highly reliable proof of a pattern of associated sex crimes, since neither the Board nor the hearing court was limited to the underlying convictions (see People v Epstein, 89 AD3d 570 [1st Dept 2011]; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548 [1st Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]).
Defendant’s contention that he should have received a downward departure is unpreserved because he made no such application to the hearing court (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d[*455] 841, 861 n 5 [2014]). In any event, we find no basis for such a departure.
As the People concede, a court making a redetermination under Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]) may not make a sexually violent offender designation (People v Velez, 100 AD3d 847 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 853 [2013]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.