PEOPLE v. MILLER (2007)

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

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kyle E. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 02, 2007

PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., GORSKI, LUNN, PERADOTTO, AND GREEN, JJ.

James S. Hinman, Rochester, for Defendant-Appellant. Edward M. Sharkey, District Attorney, Little Valley, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for an adjournment of the SORA hearing to enable him to present evidence on the issues whether he had completed a sex offender treatment program and had accepted responsibility for his conduct (see § 168-n [3] ). Although the court initially denied defendant's request for an adjournment, the record reflects that, upon reviewing the decision in Doe v. Pataki, 3 F.Supp.2d 456, the court informed defendant by letter dated July 16, 2004, that it would reopen the hearing if defendant wished to offer testimony. Defendant failed to respond to the court's offer and thus waived his present contention (see generally People v. Anonymous, 226 A.D.2d 388, 389, 640 N.Y.S.2d 232, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 933, 647 N.Y.S.2d 166, 670 N.E.2d 450).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby 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Out of date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