People v. Foster, 13 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Foster, 13 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …it was within the court's discretion to classify defendant as a level three risk . . . based upon clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support thereof at p. 1118 ✓
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Sincerbeaux (nyappdiv, 2014-10-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sincerbeaux
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We reject that contention and conclude that “ ‘[i]t was within the court’s discretion to [classify defendant as a level three risk] . . . based upon clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support thereof ” (People v Foster, 13 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2004]; see People v Catchings, 56 AD3d 1181 , 1182 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 701 [2009]; People v Billingsley, 6 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sincerbeaux
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
We reject that contention and conclude that “ ‘[i]t was within the court’s discretion to [classify defendant as a level three risk] . . . based upon clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support thereof ” (People v Foster, 13 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2004]; see People v Catchings, 56 AD3d 1181 , 1182 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 701 [2009]; People v Billingsley, 6 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Vacanti
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
We reject the further contention of defendant that he established his entitlement to a downward departure from the presumptive risk level (see Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060 [2005]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]; see also People v Foster, 13 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 707 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Jerome Foster
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2004.
13 A.D.3d 1117
2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16409
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), entered December 11, 2003. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level because one of his prior convictions upon which his presumptive risk level was calculated was for endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10) and did not involve events of a sexual nature. We reject that contention. “It was within the court’s discretion to [classify defendant as a level three risk] . . . based upon clear and convincing evidence of the facts in support thereof’ (People v Billingsley, 6 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 605 [2004]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Pine, Kehoe, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.