| People v King |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 00367 [80 AD3d 681] |
| January 18, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PhilipKing, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Jaclyn Belson of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the SupremeCourt, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated June 6, 2007, as, after a hearing, designated him a leveltwo sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level assessment pursuant to the Sex Offender RegistrationAct (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing the factssupporting the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence (see CorrectionLaw § 168-n [3]; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk AssessmentGuidelines and Commentary, at 5 [2006]; People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880 [2010]; People v Chambers, 66 AD3d 748[2009]; People v Bright, 63 AD3d1133, 1134 [2009]; People vHardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]). Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the SupremeCourt properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 because he was a stranger to the victimwithin the meaning of the Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines andCommentary (see People v Britt, 66AD3d 853, 853 [2009]; People vMilton, 55 AD3d 1073 [2008]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d 487 [2007]; People v Kaminski, 38 AD3d1127, 1128 [2007]; see also Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk AssessmentGuidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006]; compare People v Helmer, 65 AD3d 68 [2009]; People v McGraw, 24 AD3d 525,526 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly designated the defendant a level two sexoffender. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.