Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Curtis MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), entered on or about April 30, 2003, which adjudicated defendant a level-three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly assessed 20 points for the presence of two victims and 15 points for drug and alcohol abuse. Since defendant made arguments at the hearing concerning these assessments that are different from those raised on appeal, his present arguments are unpreserved (see People v. Roland, 292 A.D.2d 271, 739 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 169, 780 N.E.2d 980 [2002] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. The court properly considered the facts contained in the felony complaint filed by the second victim (see People v. Wroten, 286 A.D.2d 189, 199, 732 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2001], lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 610, 740 N.Y.S.2d 694, 767 N.E.2d 151 [2002] ), especially since they were uncontroverted (see People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc.2d 319, 329, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510 [1998] ). Furthermore, at the hearing defense counsel conceded that defendant had an alcohol and marijuana problem and was in treatment. In any event, even if the 35 points under these two categories were to be deducted, defendant would still fall well within the level-three risk category, and we perceive no basis for a discretionary downward departure from this assessment (see People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 545, 778 N.Y.S.2d 704 [2004] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 10, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)