From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Portalatin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 6, 2016
145 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

12-06-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hector PORTALATIN, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Hope Korenstein of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), entered on or about November 24, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ). Defendant did not establish that his health problems would minimize the likelihood of recidivism (see e.g. People v. Rodriguez, 101 A.D.3d 630, 955 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 21 N.Y.3d 851, 2013 WL 1299941 [2012] ), and his expression of remorse and lack of additional sex offenses were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument.

RENWICK, J.P., SAXE, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Portalatin

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 6, 2016
145 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Portalatin

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Hector PORTALATIN…

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

Date published: Dec 6, 2016

Citations

145 A.D.3d 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
41 N.Y.S.3d 712
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 8172

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

As to defendant's mobility problems, a "physical condition that minimizes [defendant's] risk of reoffense"…

People v. Sudderth

Regardless of whether defendant's correct point score is 125, or 115 as he contends, he remains a level three…