| People v Ensell |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02402 [49 AD3d 1301] |
| March 14, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul O.Ensell, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from an order of the Allegany County Court (Thomas P. Brown, J.), entered January8, 2007. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex OffenderRegistration Act.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three riskpursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA] Correction Law § 168 etseq.). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court's determination of his risk levelis supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence (see § 168-n [3]; People v Vacanti, 26 AD3d 732,733 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]; People v Hamelinck, 23 AD3d 1060 [2005]). Contrary todefendant's further contention, the case summary constitutes reliable hearsay, and the courtproperly considered it in determining defendant's risk level (see People v Woods, 41 AD3d 1299 [2007], lv denied 9NY3d 809 [2007]; People vVaughn, 26 AD3d 776 [2006]). Finally, we conclude that defendant waived his right tobe present at the SORA hearing inasmuch as the record establishes that he signed a writtenwaiver of that right, in which he "was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at thehearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his . . . absence" (People v Porter, 37 AD3d 797[2007]; see People v Brooks, 308 AD2d 99, 105-106 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d502 [2003]). We have considered defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it iswithout merit. Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.