Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016

People v. Palladino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 23, 2016 · Mastro, Dillon, Miller, Barros

137 A.D.3d 1098; 26 N.Y.S.3d 874

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Charles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. McClinton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Hayden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Alvarez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Springs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Parris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)

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 County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated May 30, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child (see People v Palladino, 260 AD2d 506 [1999]). After serving a term of imprisonment, the defendant was designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C (see People v Palladino, 46 AD3d 864 [2007]). The defendant subsequently moved, pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2), for a modification of his risk level classification from level three to level two. The County Court denied the defendant’s motion, and we affirm.

*1099 Correction Law § 168-0 (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478, 483 [2015]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483; see Correction Law § I68-0 [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]; see generally People v Willis, 130 AD3d 1470, 1471 [2015]; People v McCollum, 83 AD3d 1504, 1504-1505 [2011]; People v Cullen, 79AD3d 1677, 1677 [2010]; People v Higgins, 55 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2008]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied his motion.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.