Case Name: The People of State of New York, Respondent, v. Adam Patronick, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2014-05-28
Citations: 117 A.D.3d 1018
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Patronick, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.E, Lott, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 1018–1019

Head Matter:
The People of State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Patronick, Appellant.
[986 NYS2d 593]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated December 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 117-118 [2011]). " 'In assessing points, evidence may be derived from . . . the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay' " (People v Barbour, 111 AD3d 813, 813-814 [2013], quoting People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; see Correc tion Law § 168-n [3]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571-572 [2009]; People v McPherson, 114 AD3d 653 [2014],).
Here, the case summary and the sworn felony complaint constituted "reliable hearsay" (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 576; People v Dash, 111 AD3d 907, 908 [2013]) and provided clear and convincing evidence to warrant the assessment of 20 points under risk factor four, for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct against the victim (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10 [2006]). This provided sufficient points for the defendant to be designated a level two sex offender.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his due process rights were not violated at the SORA hearing (see People v Harris, 100 AD3d 727, 728 [2012]).
Rivera, J.E, Lott, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.