| People v Sooknanan |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04910 [119 AD3d 540] |
| July 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robin Sooknanan, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Lorraine Maddalo of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andMorgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Esther Traydman on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Foley,J.), dated December 19, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sexoffender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was properly assessed points for risk factor7 (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines andCommentary at 3 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). The grand jury testimony of the13-year-old complainant, and the defendant's statement set forth in the presentenceinvestigation report, demonstrated that the defendant and the complainant had never metuntil shortly before the crime occurred, when the defendant happened to be present at theapartment of the complainant's friend (see People v Hewitt, 73 AD3d 880, 881 [2010]; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d820, 820 [2010]; cf. Peoplev Pelaez, 112 AD3d 684, 685 [2013]; People v Shephard, 101 AD3d 978, 978 [2012]).Accordingly, the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that thedefendant was a "stranger" to the complainant within the meaning of risk factor 7(Guidelines at 12).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court lacked thediscretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level, since the defendantfailed to identify a mitigating factor not otherwise adequately taken into account by theGuidelines (see e.g. People vReede, 113 AD3d 663, 664 [2014]; People v Martinez, 104 AD3d 924, 925 [2013]). Mastro,J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.