PEOPLE v. HARDY (2009)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward W. HARDY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: March 20, 2009

PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, AND GORSKI, JJ.

E. Robert Fussell, P.C., Leroy (E. Robert Fussell of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from an order designating him a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant contends that County Court's assessment of 40 additional points at the SORA hearing is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence and thus that he was not properly classified as a level three risk (see § 168-n[3] ). We reject that contention. The record establishes that the court properly considered the case summary, which constitutes reliable hearsay, in determining defendant's risk level (see People v. Vacanti, 26 A.D.3d 732, 807 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied 6 N.Y.3d 714, 816 N.Y.S.2d 750, 849 N.E.2d 973). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network