| People v Gleason |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05599 [85 AD3d 1508] |
| June 30, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Daniel E. Gleason, Appellant. |
—[*1] James E. Conboy, District Attorney, Fonda (John N. Clo of counsel), forrespondent.
Peters, J. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Montgomery County (Catena, J.),entered March 23, 2010, which classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender pursuant tothe Sex Offender Registration Act.
In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sexual act in the third degree and wassentenced to three years in prison followed by seven years of postrelease supervision. Inanticipation of defendant's release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenderssubmitted a risk assessment instrument to County Court pursuant to the Sex OffenderRegistration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) with a score of 105 points, presumptivelyclassifying defendant as a risk level two sex offender. Following a hearing, County Courtadopted the Board's recommendation and classified defendant as a risk level two sex offender.Defendant now appeals.
We affirm. To establish the appropriate risk level, the People bear the burden of producingclear and convincing evidence, which may consist of reliable hearsay evidence (see People v Rhodehouse, 77 AD3d1032, 1033 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 701 [2011]; People v Parker, 62 AD3d 1195,1196 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 704 [2009]). Here, the People satisfied that burden withrespect to the assessment of 20 points for the victim being a stranger to defendant, as the victimstated that she met defendant that day while at her friend's apartment [*2]complex and defendant's own statement to police evidenced that hedid not know the victim's name (seePeople v Milton, 55 AD3d 1073 [2008]; People v Kaminski, 38 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2007], lv denied9 NY3d 803 [2007]). Additionally, because defendant recanted his admissions regarding theextent of his involvement with the victim, and because he called into question both the victim'scharacter and her motivation regarding the incident, we cannot say that he was improperlyassessed 10 points for failing to accept responsibility (see People v Lerch, 66 AD3d 1088, 1088 [2009], lv denied13 NY3d 715 [2010]; People vLegall, 63 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]).
Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order isaffirmed, without costs.