Court Opinion

ID: 4543763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-24 20:11:09.336353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:58.498939
License: Public Domain

People v Banuchi (2020 NY Slip Op 03553)

People v Banuchi

2020 NY Slip Op 03553

Decided on June 24, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 24, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2018-10754

[*1]People of State of New York, respondent,
vLouis Banuchi, appellant.

Janet E. Sabel, New York, NY (Rachel L. Pecker of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and William H. Branigan of counsel; Mirza Hadzic on the brief), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gia L. Morris, J.), dated August 10, 2018. The order, without a hearing, denied the defendant's petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) to modify his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant's petition.
By petition dated March 30, 2018, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition without holding a hearing. We reverse.
Since the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant's petition, as set forth in Correction Law § 168-o(4), we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant's petition (see People v Runko, 105 AD3d 927, 928; People v Damato, 58 AD3d 819, 821). We express no opinion as to the appropriate determination.
MASTRO, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court