People v Palma (Christopher)

[*1] People v Palma (Christopher) 2010 NY Slip Op 51217(U) [28 Misc 3d 128(A)] Decided on July 8, 2010 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 July 8, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., LaCAVA and IANNACCI, JJ
2006-840 RO C.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Christopher G. Palma, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County (Victor J. Alfieri, Jr., J.), entered April 17, 2006. The order, after a hearing, designated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed without costs.

Defendant appeals from an order designating him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

At the hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law article 6-C), the risk assessment instrument submitted into evidence assessed defendant with a total score of 105 points and assigned a presumptive risk level two sex offender designation. The Justice Court determined that an upward departure was
warranted and designated defendant a level three sex offender.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the clear and convincing evidence adduced at the SORA hearing supports the Justice Court's determination of an upward departure to the level three sex offender classification. An aggravating factor was presented involving defendant's six-year-old cousin, which had not been adequately accounted for in the risk assessment instrument (People v Twyman, 59 AD3d 415 [2009]). Moreover, there was evidence at the hearing that defendant gave an underage female alcohol prior to engaging in a sexual act with her, which fact was similarly not accounted for in the risk assessment instrument. This evidence demonstrated that defendant is a pedophile with a grave risk of reoffending (see People v Vives, 57 AD3d 312 [2008]). As we find no basis to disturb defendant's designation as a level three sex offender, the order is affirmed.

Nicolai, P.J., LaCava and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 08, 2010