From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cerasaro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 11, 2022
205 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

2019–12109

05-11-2022

PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael CERASARO, appellant.

Kelley M. Enderley, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.


Kelley M. Enderley, Poughkeepsie, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), dated September 24, 2019, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006) promulgated by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders contain four overrides that automatically result in a presumptive risk assessment of level three (see People v. Champagne, 140 A.D.3d 719, 719, 31 N.Y.S.3d 218 ). "The People bear the burden of proving the applicability of a particular override by clear and convincing evidence" ( People v. Lobello, 123 A.D.3d 993, 994, 999 N.Y.S.2d 179 ; see Correction Law § 168–n[3] ).

Here, the People established by clear and convincing evidence that an automatic override resulting in a presumptive risk assessment of level three for the defendant was warranted based on the defendant's prior felony sex offense conviction in May 2007 (see People v. Fessel , 149 A.D.3d 1113, 1114, 50 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Champagne , 140 A.D.3d at 720, 31 N.Y.S.3d 218 ).

Although a court may nevertheless depart from the presumptive risk level "where the circumstances warrant such a departure" ( People v. Johnson, 135 A.D.3d 720, 721, 22 N.Y.S.3d 238 ), here the defendant failed to assert any mitigating circumstances (see e.g. People v. Champagne, 140 A.D.3d at 720, 31 N.Y.S.3d 218 ).

Accordingly, the County Court correctly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.

DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cerasaro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 11, 2022
205 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

People v. Cerasaro

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Michael CERASARO, appellant.

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

Date published: May 11, 2022

Citations

205 A.D.3d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
165 N.Y.S.3d 872

Citing Cases

People v. Cerasaro

DECISION & ORDER Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Cerasaro

DECISION & ORDER Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…