| People v Wizes |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09591 [79 AD3d 1543] |
| December 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adrian Wizes,Appellant. |
—[*1] Kevin C. Kortright, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Katherine G. Henley of counsel), forrespondent.
McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.),entered January 8, 2010, which classified defendant as a risk level three sex offender pursuant to theSex Offender Registration Act.
In satisfaction of an indictment handed up in Warren County arising from his molestation of younggirls and possession of child pornography, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse in thefirst degree. He further pleaded guilty to a superior court information in Washington County charginghim with sexual abuse in the first degree. As his release from prison on those convictions and a relatedprobation violation petition neared, County Court classified defendant as a risk level three sexuallyviolent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C)following a hearing. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
Contrary to defendant's argument regarding the duration required to assess points for a continuingcourse of conduct, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders assesses points for the duration of theoffending conduct "when [defendant] engages in either (i) two or more acts of sexual contact, at leastone of which is an act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, or aggravatedsexual contact, which acts are separated in time by at least 24 [*2]hours, or (ii) three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at leasttwo weeks" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 10[2006]; see Correction Law § 168-l [5]; compare Penal Law§§ 130.75, 130.80). In any event, clear and convincing evidence—including thepresentence investigation reports, case summary and a victim's statement—supports theassessment of points on this factor, as defendant, a dentist, molested a young patient on at least fouroccasions over several months (see People vWillette, 67 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 704 [2010]; People v Wright, 53 AD3d 963, 964[2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 710 [2008]).
Defendant's remaining claims require little discussion. At least one victim stated that defendantreached under her clothes and molested her, warranting an assessment of points for sexual contactunder a victim's clothing. County Court was also not limited to consideration of the crimes ofconviction, and reliable hearsay evidence indicated that defendant victimized three or more young girls(see People v Thomas, 59 AD3d783, 784 [2009]). Accordingly, at least 130 risk assessment points properly accrued againstdefendant and, even assuming that he was erroneously assessed points for other risk factors, he wascorrectly classified as a risk level three sex offender.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,without costs.