People of State of New York, respondent, v. Adam Patronick, appellant. (2014)

Submitted—April 10, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Koenderman, J.), dated December 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6–C), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168–n[3];  Sex Offender Registration Act:  Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006];  People v. Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408;  People v. Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 117–118).  “ ‘In assessing points, evidence may be derived from ․ the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ․ or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay’ ” (People v. Barbour, 111 AD3d 813, 813–814, quoting People v. Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629;  see Correction Law § 168–n [3];  Sex Offender Registration Act:  Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006];  People v. Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571–572;  People v. McPherson, 114 AD3d 653).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his due process rights were not violated at the SORA hearing (see People v. Harris, 100 AD3d 727, 728).

RIVERA, J.P., LOTT, MILLER and DUFFY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court