Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Hayden, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 144 A.D.3d 1010
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Hayden, Appellant.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Miller, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 1010–1011

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Hayden, Appellant.
[40 NYS3d 917]—

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated May 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (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.
On May 31, 2000, the defendant was convicted of one count of rape in the third degree, and sentenced to a term of five years probation. At that time, the defendant was also designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. In 2012, the defendant made an application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk classification from level three to level one. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's application, and we affirm.
Correction Law § 168-o (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 Palladino, 137 AD3d 1098 [2016]; 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 § 168-o [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125).
Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convine- ing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification (see People v Palladino, 137 AD3d at 1099; People v Johnson, 124 AD3d 495, 496 [2015]; People v McFarland, 120 AD3d 1121, 1121 [2014]; People v Wright, 78 AD3d 1437, 1438 [2010]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his application.
Leventhal, J.P., Miller, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.