Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Granzeier, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-16
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 989
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Granzeier, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.R, Leventhal, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 989–989

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Granzeier, Appellant.
[26 NYS3d 708]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Margulis, J.), dated April 8, 2015, 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.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 3 (number of victims) and 20 points under risk factor 7 (relationship with victim) based upon his conviction, in Florida, of possession of a sexual performance by a child (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416 [2008]; People v Nethercott, 119 AD3d 918 [2014]).
The Supreme Court's determination to designate the defendant a level two sex offender was based upon its assessment of a total of 80 points under the risk assessment instrument (see Correction Law § 168-k [2]). The court did not upwardly depart to a risk level two. Thus, the defendant's contention that the court erroneously granted an upward departure is without merit.
The defendant's remaining contention, that there was a "compelling basis" for a downward departure, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 421; People v Estrella, 90 AD3d 879 [2011]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
Rivera, J.R, Leventhal, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.