People v. Granzeier
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Young (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Reuter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Hamilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
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
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), dated April 8, 2015, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) based upon his conviction, in Florida, of possession of a sexual performance by a child (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416 [2008]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]).
The Supreme Court’s determination to designate the defendant a level two sex offender was based upon its assessment of a total of 80 points under the risk assessment instrument (see Correction Law § 168-k [2]). The court did not upwardly depart to a risk level two. Thus, the defendant’s contention that the court erroneously granted an upward departure is without merit.
The defendant’s remaining contention, that there was a “compelling basis” for a downward departure, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Estrella, 90 AD3d 879 [2011]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.