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, respondent, v. Harry Abrams, appellant.
Submitted-September 7, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), dated February 26, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he was properly assessed 15 points for risk factor 11 (history of drug or alcohol abuse). In 1986, the defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. In 1993, he was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. According to the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, which constitutes “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]; see People v. Mabee, 69 AD3d 820), the defendant admitted to prison officials in or around December 1993 that he had a drug problem. Moreover, the case summary indicated that the defendant recently had enrolled in a prison sex offender program designed for chemically-dependent offenders.
The defendant's prior convictions, coupled with the information contained in the case summary, were sufficient to sustain the points assessed (cf. People v. Luebbert, 73 AD3d 1399; People v. Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880, lv denied NY3d, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 82103 [2010]; People v. Mabee, 69 AD3d 820).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court's designation of the defendant as a level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C) is supported by clear and convincing evidence and should not be disturbed (see People v. Harris, 74 AD3d 767).
The defendant's argument that the Supreme Court misapprehended a portion of his criminal history is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Teagle, 64 AD3d 549, 550).
DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-02332
Decided: September 28, 2010
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)