Court Opinion

ID: 5828885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 21:39:51.580395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:23.056091
License: Public Domain

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s order adequately sets forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which its determination was based (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; cf. People v Burke, 68 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2009]). Moreover, the record on appeal permits meaningful appellate review of the propriety of the Supreme Court’s risk-level determination.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive risk-level assessment and, thus, he was properly designated a level three sex offender (see People v Smith, 85 AD3d 891 [2011]; People v Sivells, 83 AD3d 1027 [2011]; People v Bussie, 83 AD3d 920 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 704 [2011]). Rivera, J.E, Covello, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.