People v Qureshi (Abdul)

[*1] People v Qureshi (Abdul) 2011 NY Slip Op 50658(U) Decided on April 15, 2011 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 15, 2011
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,570401/09 - -

against

Abdul Jalil Qureshi, Defendant-Appellant.

APRIL 15, 2011 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT March 2011 Term Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ.The People of the State of New York, NY County Clerk's No. Respondent,570401/09 - against - Abdul Jalil Qureshi,Calendar No. 09-351 Defendant-Appellant. Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, which adjudicated him a level-two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C). Per Curiam. Order (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, affirmed. Defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a downward departure from the presumptive level assigned to him under the risk assessment instrument (see People v Cullen, 60 AD3d 1466 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Nor did he properly preserve for appellate review his contentions that his alleged familial responsibilities and ill health constituted mitigating factors (see generally People v Cullen, 79 AD3d 1677 [2010]; People v Torres, 51 AD3d 531 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). In any event, those contentions are without merit. Accordingly, Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant as a level two sex offender (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d at 545). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. Decision Date: April 15, 2011

Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, which adjudicated him a level-two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).

 

Per Curiam.

Order (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, affirmed.

Defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a downward departure from the presumptive level assigned to him under the risk assessment instrument (see People v Cullen, 60 AD3d 1466 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Nor did he properly preserve for appellate review his contentions that his alleged familial responsibilities and ill health constituted mitigating factors (see generally People v Cullen, 79 AD3d 1677 [2010]; People v Torres, 51 AD3d 531 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). In any event, those contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant as a level two sex offender (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d at 545).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 15, 2011