From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-05288

Argued June 17, 2002.

December 9, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated April 28, 2000, which, pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C, designated him a level two sex offender.

Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

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

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's finding that the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders correctly determined that he should be assessed 20 points as to item number 7 on his "Risk Assessment Instrument," because the relationship between the defendant and the victim grew out of the professional relationship he had with the victim and her sisters, is supported by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n). Furthermore, the Grand Jury testimony was properly considered by the Supreme Court in making its determination (see Correction Law § 168-n).

FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, respondent, v. WILLIAM THOMAS, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 9, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
750 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

People v. Wingate

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Contrary to the defendant's contention,…

People v. Stein

The People contend that the Board properly assessed 20 points against defendant under the third scenario set…