| People v Woods |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09076 [45 AD3d 408] |
| November 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LeroyWoods, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City (Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth L. Sussman, J.), entered on or aboutFebruary 10, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the SexOffender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, risk factorsbearing a sufficient total point score to support a level three sex offender adjudication. The riskfactors at issue were supported by reliable evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Dort, 18 AD3d23, 25 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 885 [2005]), and we have considered and rejecteddefendant's arguments as to each factor at issue.
In any event, the record also supports the court's alternative finding that defendant should beadjudicated a level three sex offender based upon the override for a recent threat to reoffend bycommitting a sexual or violent crime. Although defendant's recent case was still pending at thetime of the sex offender adjudication, the court did not rely on the fact of the arrest, but onreliable evidence establishing the underlying facts. We also reject defendant's argument that thisoverride is intended to encompass verbal threats only; an actual crime poses an equal, if notgreater, risk than a verbal threat.
Defendant's challenges to the choice of risk factors made by the Legislature and the Board ofExaminers of Sex Offenders are both waived and without merit (see People v Bligen, 33[*2]AD3d 489 [2006]; People v Joe, 26 AD3d 300 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 703[2006]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.