| People v Manson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07460 [111 AD3d 688] |
| November 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nathaniel Manson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Adam M.Koelsch, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated October 18, 2011, as, after a hearing,designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
Since it was undisputed that the defendant had previously been convicted of a felonysex crime, the defendant was presumptively a level three sex offender pursuant to anautomatic override, irrespective of the points scored on the risk assessment instrument(see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines andCommentary at 3 [2006]; People v Henry, 107 AD3d 678, 679 [2013]; People v Palmer, 91 AD3d618 [2012]). In light of our determination that an override was established, we neednot reach the defendant's challenge to the assessment of points under risk factors 4 and11 (see People v Spencer,104 AD3d 660, 661 [2013]).
Moreover, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the defendant's risk ofreoffense and danger to the community, we conclude that the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application for a downward departurefrom his presumptive risk level designation (see People v Eaton, 105 AD3d 722, 723 [2013]; People v Carroll, 102 AD3d848, 849 [2013]; People vTineo-Morales, 101 AD3d 839 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal andLott, JJ., concur.