PEOPLE v. CENTOFANTI (2020)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum:  On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ( [SORA] Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that County Court erred in using a risk assessment instrument (RAI) prepared by the District Attorney (DA) because it did not comply with the SORA Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary (2006).  We reject that contention.  “If the [DA] seeks a determination that differs from the recommendation submitted by the [B]oard [of Examiners of Sex Offenders], ․ the [DA] shall provide to the court and the sex offender a statement setting forth the determinations sought by the [DA] together with the reasons for seeking such determinations” (§ 168–k [2] ).  The RAI prepared by the DA, by which she requested the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 3, was such a statement.  To the extent that defendant contends that the court erred in assessing him those points, he failed to preserve his contention for our review (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 854, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014] ).

Finally, we have reviewed the contentions in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the order.