Opinion
KA 05-01754.
July 7, 2006.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), dated May 11, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.
Present-Hurlbutt, J.P, Kehoe, Gorski, Green and Pine, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.) Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court properly determined that he is subject to the requirements of SORA ( see People v Curley, 285 AD2d 274, lv denied 97 NY2d 607), and the court's determination with respect to defendant's risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( see § 168-n [3]; People u Hegazy, 25 AD3d 675). We reject the further contentions of defendant that the court's consideration of hearsay evidence violated his right to confront witnesses ( see People v Dort, 18 AD3d 23, 25, lv denied 4 NY3d 885) and that the statements in the presentence report do not constitute "reliable hearsay" (§ 168-n [3]; see People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732, lv denied 6 NY3d 714). Finally, although the People did not timely notify defendant that the risk assessment instrument (RAI) had been revised, the court offered defendant an adjournment and thus afforded defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond to the revised RAI ( see generally People v Inghilleri, 21 AD3d 404).