Opinion
2017–06837
03-13-2019
PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeanette HEGAZY, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Susan Epstein and Harold Ferguson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Susan Epstein and Harold Ferguson of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, ROBERT J. MILLER, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah A. Dowling, J.), dated June 1, 2017, which, after a hearing, denied her petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2) for a modification of her risk level classification under Correction Law article 6–C. ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant failed to sustain her burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of her existing sex offender risk level classification from level two to level one (see Correction Law § 168–o[2] ; People v. Lashway, 25 N.Y.3d 478, 483, 13 N.Y.S.3d 337, 34 N.E.3d 847 ; People v. Perry, 165 A.D.3d 714, 82 N.Y.S.3d 728 ; People v. Smith, 154 A.D.3d 890, 62 N.Y.S.3d 275 ). Although the defendant has not re-offended since her release from prison on the underlying sex offense and is in her 60s, these factors are outweighed by the extreme seriousness and nature of the underlying sex offense, as well as the other negative background factors that contributed to the defendant's level two adjudication (see People v. Charles, 162 A.D.3d 125, 140–141, 77 N.Y.S.3d 130 ; People v. Johnson, 124 A.D.3d 495, 1 N.Y.S.3d 103 ). While the record shows that the defendant has completed sex offender treatment, there is no evidence as to whether her participation in such treatment was meaningful (see People v. Vancura, 95 A.D.3d 852, 942 N.Y.S.2d 900 ). The defendant's continuing refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her minimization of her role in the underlying sex offense weigh against any modification of her risk level classification at this time (see People v. Charles, 162 A.D.3d at 141, 77 N.Y.S.3d 130 ; People v. Johnson, 124 A.D.3d at 496, 1 N.Y.S.3d 103 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, MILLER and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.