From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 2011
85 A.D.3d 1632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. KA 10-00703.

June 10, 2011.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank R Geraci, Jr., J.), entered February 22, 2010. The order denied defendant's petition to modify the determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.


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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (2) seeking to modify the prior determination that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (§ 168 et seq.). As County Court properly determined, "defendant failed to meet his 'burden of proving the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence'" ( People v Higgins, 55 AD3d 1303, quoting § 168-0 [2]; see People v McCollum, 83 AD3d 1504; People v Cullen, 79 AD3d 1677, lv denied 16 NY3d 709).


Summaries of

People v. Grossman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 2011
85 A.D.3d 1632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN GROSSMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 10, 2011

Citations

85 A.D.3d 1632 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4940
924 N.Y.S.2d 909

Citing Cases

People v. Willis

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that City Court erred in requiring that he…

People v. Willis

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that City Court erred in requiring that he…