At page 1093 Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), dated April 14, 2009, which, after a hearing, inter alia, designated…1 citing case
- People v. Dash, 111 A.D.3d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published Here, as the People correctly point out, the presentence report prepared by the Department of Probation, the felony complaint sworn to and signed by the arresting officer, and the arrest report constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction La…
At page 1094 clear and convincing evidence. The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders constituted “reliable hearsay”…1 citing case
- People v. Frith, 131 A.D.3d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2015).publishedThe case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners, as well as the remaining documentation presented by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay,” and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of the points chall…
v.
Edward Williams
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), dated April 14, 2009, which, after a hearing, inter alia, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant’s appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determination by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Williams, 90 AD3d 880, 881 [2011]; People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]). Here, the People satisfied their burden of adducing facts in support of the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) by[*1094] clear and convincing evidence. The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Williams, 90 AD3d at 881).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the County Court correctly designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Rivera, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.