Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert Edney, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-10-12
Citations: 143 A.D.3d 793
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Edney, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 793–793

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Edney, Appellant.
[38 NYS3d 817]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated March 28, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In 1974, the defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and kidnapping in the second degree in connection with the killing of an eight-year-old child (see People v Edney, 47 AD2d 906 [1975], affd 39 NY2d 620 [1976]). Upon his release on parole in 2011, he was required to register as a sex offender, since, he was convicted of kidnapping a child who was not his own, even though there was no evidence that his crime involved a sexual act or had a sexual motive (see Correction Law § 168-a [2]; People v Knox, 12 NY3d 60, 64 [2009]; People v Cintron, 46 AD3d 353, 354 [2007], affd 12 NY3d 60 [2009]; People v Taylor, 42 AD3d 13, 14 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the application of Correction Law article 6-C to him was proper (see People v Knox, 12 NY3d at 64; People v Cintron, 46 AD3d at 354; People v Taylor, 42 AD3d at 14).
The record established, by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant's failure to accept responsibility (see People v Jamison, 137 AD3d 1742, 1743 [2016]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level made on the basis of his age (see People v Vegh, 134 AD3d 1084 [2015]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d 744, 746 [2015]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before this Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender.
Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.