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. MICHAEL ROTTERMAN, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court complied with the statutory mandate to set forth “the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determination [is] based” (§ 168–n [3]; see People v. Carter, 35 AD3d 1023, 1023–1024, lv denied 8 NY3d 810). We reject defendant's further contention that the People failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the assessment of 30 points against him for being armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of one of the underlying crimes. That assessment is supported by the reliable hearsay contained in the case summary and the presentence report (see People v. Thompson, 66 AD3d 1455, 1456, lv denied 13 NY3d 714; see generally People v. Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that a downward departure from his presumptive risk level was warranted (see People v. Quinones, 91 AD3d 1302, 1303). Finally, we reject defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing (see People v. Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 181, lv denied 18 NY3d 807).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: KA 11–01340
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)