From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tilley

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2016
138 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

04-19-2016

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Todd TILLEY, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Bari L. Kamlet of counsel), for respondent.


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

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Bari L. Kamlet of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), entered on or about December 10, 2014, which denied defendant's Correction Law § 168–o(2) petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming without deciding that the order is appealable, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion in denying any modification of defendant's level three classification. The underlying sex crimes, several of which involved children, were both numerous and egregious, and defendant has not established that the mitigating factors he cites, such as his age and the absence of postrelease sex crimes, presently warrant a modification.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Tilley

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Apr 19, 2016
138 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

People v. Tilley

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Todd TILLEY…

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

Date published: Apr 19, 2016

Citations

138 A.D.3d 547 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2933
28 N.Y.S.3d 590

Citing Cases

People v. DiMartini

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2015, which…

People v. Charles

The People counter that no Appellate Division Department had been asked to consider, and thus, did not…