| People v Watson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05562 [109 AD3d 463] |
| August 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of State of New York,Respondent, v Stacey Watson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and LindaBreen of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), dated January 10, 2011, as, after a hearing,designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly assessed 15 pointsunder risk factor 12 because the People failed to establish, by clear and convincingevidence, that he failed to accept responsibility and that he refused or was expelled fromtreatment is unpreserved for appellate review (see generally People v Cuesta, 65 AD3d 1113, 1114[2009]; People vWiedeman, 51 AD3d 888 [2008]; People v Sinclair, 23 AD3d 537 [2005]; People v Oquendo, 1 AD3d421, 422 [2003]). In any event, this contention is without merit (see SexOffender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 15-16[2006]; People v DeCastro,101 AD3d 693 [2012]; People v Peana, 68 AD3d 737 [2009]; People v Orengo, 40 AD3d609, 610 [2007]). Moreover, the defendant's unsatisfactory conduct during hisincarceration, which was established, inter alia, by the case summary, warranted theassessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 (see Sex Offender Registration Act:Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 16 [2006]; People v Williams, 100 AD3d610, 611 [2012]; People vNiola, 50 AD3d 991 [2008]). Accordingly, the defendant was properlydesignated a level two sex offender. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.