People v Caban
2009 NY Slip Op 03145 [61 AD3d 834]
April 21, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Michael Caban, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Laura Lieberman Cohen of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Jaclyn Belson of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.),dated January 30, 2007, which, after a hearing to redetermine the defendant's sex offender risklevel pursuant to the stipulation of settlement in Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [1998]),designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

At the hearing held pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) toredetermine the defendant's risk level (see Correction Law § 168-a etseq.), the Supreme Court properly assessed the defendant 20 points under risk factor 5because the victim was between 11 and 16 years old (Sex Offender Registration Act: RiskAssessment Guidelines and Commentary [2006]) and 20 additional points under risk factor 6because the victim was asleep at the beginning of the incident and therefore was "physicallyhelpless" (id. at 11; see Penal Law § 130.00 [7]; People v Bush, 57 AD3d 1119[2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 756 [2009]; People v Ramirez, 53 AD3d 990, 990-991 [2008]; People v Davis, 51 AD3d 442[2008]; People v DeCicco, 38AD3d 937 [2007]; People vVaughn, 26 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2006]; People v Greene, 13 AD3d 991, 992 [2004]; People vSensourichanh, 290 AD2d 886 [2002]). Inasmuch as the victim's physical helplessness wasnot the result of, or in any way connected with, her age, assessing points in both categories didnot constitute impermissible double counting (see People v Davis, 51 AD3d at 442;cf. Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 11[2006]).[*2]

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo andLeventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.