People v. Sanderline
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- People v. Diaz (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 February 25, 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.
An upward departure from the presumptive risk level is permitted only if the court determines “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act] guidelines” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter the Guidelines]; see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; People v DeWoody, 127 AD3d 831, 831-832 [2015]). Here, the County Court properly determined that the People *1062 presented clear and convincing evidence of aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines (see People v Jackson, 139 AD3d 1031 [2016]; People v DeDona, 102 AD3d 58, 69 [2012]). Upon making that determination, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure (see People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 123 [2011]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly designated a level two sex offender.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.