People v Gonzalez

Annotate this Case
People v Gonzalez 2016 NY Slip Op 07631 Decided on November 16, 2016 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 16, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2007-11625

[*1]People of State of New York, respondent,

v

Over Gonzalez, appellant.



Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Joanne Legano Ross of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel; Justin K. Moldovan on the brief), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mullings, J.), dated November 26, 2007, 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.

The defendant appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law article 6-C; hereinafter SORA).

The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a downward departure from his presumptive designation as a level two sex offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 n 5; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 422; People v Rodriguez, 136 AD3d 880, 881). In any event, the defendant failed to identify any mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the SORA guidelines (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d at 861; People v Uphael, 140 AD3d 1143, 1145; People v Sanchez, 138 AD3d 946, 947).

DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.