Case ID: ad3d_137/html/1098-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mauro Palladino, Appellant.
    [26 NYS3d 874]
   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.

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.