People v. Mundo
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Barber (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- NEWMAN, MICHAEL, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- KUNZ, ROBERT J., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Kunz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- MOSHMAN, JASON M., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- FIGUEROA, KENNETH F., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- ENGLANT, TIMOTHY J., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- COGER, BENNIE, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- ZIMMERMAN, CHRISTOPHER, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Zimmerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Zimmerman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court’s assessment of 15 points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse, which was based upon the recommendation in the risk assessment instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see generally § 168-n [3]). Although defendant testified at the SORA hearing that he did not have a history of drug or alcohol abuse, the court was entitled to reject that testimony inasmuch as it was contradicted by defendant’s statements regarding his marihuana and alcohol use that were set forth in the presentence report (see People v Longtin, 54 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 714 [2009]). Furthermore, the record establishes that defendant was required to attend drug and alcohol treatment while incarcerated, thus further supporting the court’s assessment of points for a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Present— Scudder, PJ., Smith, Centra, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.