From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

278 KA 17–01903

03-15-2019

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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–o (2) seeking to modify the prior determination that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (§ 168 et seq. ). We conclude that County Court properly determined that defendant failed to meet his "burden of proving the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence" ( § 168–o [2 ]; see People v. Higgins, 55 A.D.3d 1303, 1303, 864 N.Y.S.2d 356 [4th Dept. 2008] ).


Summaries of

People v. Williams

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Mar 15, 2019
170 A.D.3d 1531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas WILLIAMS…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 1531 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
170 A.D.3d 1531

Citing Cases

People v. Singleton

We reject defendant's further contention in his main brief that the court erred in denying the petition. In…

People v. Singleton

We reject defendant's further contention in his main brief that the court erred in denying the petition. In…