People v. Hampton
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Walker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Derrico (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Rios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Hands (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Ruddy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Robert I. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Agard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Valentine (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Awalt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Dexter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. McGraw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Mohabeer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Peterkin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Hitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Guaman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Baker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), dated March 22, 2001, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level three sex offender.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination designating him a level three sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Wroten, 286 AD2d 189). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.