| People v Shkreli |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01592 [115 AD3d 728] |
| March 12, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nikoll Shkreli, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Raffaelina Gianfrancesco andSteven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Westchester County(Cacace, J.), entered October 11, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a levelthree sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In establishing a defendant's risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act(Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]), the People bear the burden of establishingthe facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence(see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see also Sex OffenderRegistration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d880 [2010] People vChambers, 66 AD3d 748, 748 [2009]; People v Bright, 63 AD3d 1133, 1134 [2009]; People v Hardy, 42 AD3d487 [2007]). "In assessing points, evidence may be derived from the defendant'sadmissions, the victim's statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervisingprobation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared bythe Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source,including reliable hearsay" (People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; seeSex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d820, 820 [2010]; see alsoPeople v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563 [2009]).
Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 10points against him under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility for hisconduct. The evidence before the County Court, including the contents of thepre-sentence report and a subsequent report from the Westchester County Department ofProbation, demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had notaccepted responsibility for his conduct (see People v Quinn, 99 AD3d 776, 777 [2012]; People v Thompson, 95 AD3d977, 978 [2012]; People vChandler, 80 AD3d 741, 742 [2011]).
Accordingly, the County Court properly assessed the defendant 10 points under riskfactor 12, and properly designated the defendant a level three sex offender. Skelos, J.P.,Dickerson, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.