| People v Bright |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05528 [63 AD3d 1133] |
| June 30, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Bright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Margaret E. Mainusch and JoannaHershey of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.),entered August 30, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offenderpursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing the appropriate risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act(Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of proving the necessary facts by clear andconvincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Lawless,44 AD3d 738 [2007]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]). The facts may beproved, inter alia, by reliable hearsay: "the court shall review any victim's statement and anyrelevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender and the district attorney and therecommendation and materials submitted by the board, and may consider reliable hearsayevidence submitted by either party, provided that it is relevant to the determinations" (CorrectionLaw § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, — NY3d —, 2009 NY Slip Op04700 [2009]).
Here, the Supreme Court properly considered, inter alia, the elements of the crime of whichthe defendant was convicted, statements by the victim and the defendant contained in thedefendant's presentence investigation report, the risk assessment instrument, police records, andthe court file. This evidence, considered in its entirety, established by clear and convincingevidence each of the court's assessments as to the applicable risk factors, and supported thedetermination that the defendant was a level two sex offender (see People v Burgess, 6AD3d 686 [2004]; People v Smith, 5 AD3d 752 [2004]; People v Moore, 1AD3d 421 [2003]; People v Mitchell, 300 AD2d 377 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall,JJ., concur.