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.
PEOPLE of State of New York, etc., respondent, v. David A. HOFFMAN, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated April 21, 2006, which, after a hearing to redetermine his sex offender risk level pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v. Pataki, 3 F.Supp.2d 456, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C after a hearing. We affirm the designation but for reasons other than those set forth by the hearing court (see People v. Ashby, 56 A.D.3d 633, 868 N.Y.S.2d 88).
The court improperly assessed the defendant points for number of victims, as it included victims not associated with the current offense, and duration of offense conduct with victim, as the People did not offer proof of more than one incident (see Sex Offender Registration Act, Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 10). Further, points should not have been assessed for prior crimes, as the conviction in 1986 was a subsequent crime (see People v. Best, 45 A.D.3d 657, 846 N.Y.S.2d 240).
However, the court should have granted the People's application for an override to a level three sex offender. The defendant was diagnosed with pedophilia, and, accordingly, an override to a level three designation was warranted (see Sex Offender Registration Act, Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 3-4; People v. McCollum, 41 A.D.3d 1187, 839 N.Y.S.2d 360).
Accordingly, the order should be affirmed.
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: May 26, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)