Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mauro Palladino, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-23
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 1098
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mauro Palladino, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 1098–1099

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

Opinion:
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.