Legal Opinion
People v. Livingston
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided August 16, 2011PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
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…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. BurkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. BussieAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. SivellsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. PalmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. AbreuAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. SantanaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. RosadoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. SantanaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013