People v Jean-Bart, 2016 NY Slip Op 08211 [145 AD3d 690]

December 7, 2016

Appellate Division, Second Department

[*1]

The People of State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jean Jean-Bart, Appellant.

Kent V. Moston, Hempstead, NY (Jeremy L. Goldberg and Dori Cohen of counsel), for appellant.

Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Daniel Bresnahan of counsel; Peter Gallucci on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), dated December 10, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances presented, where the defendant had already been released from prison before he became classified as a “sex offender” as a result of his conviction (Correction Law § 168-a [1]), the Supreme Court did not err in determining the defendant’s risk level, for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act, based on a risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney’s office instead of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ( see Correction Law §§ 168-d [3]; 168- l [8]; compare People v Grimm , 107 AD3d 1040 [2013], with People v Hernaiz , 126 AD3d 771 [2015], People v Grabowski , 126 AD3d 769 [2015], People v Game , 110 AD3d 861 [2013], and People v Black , 33 AD3d 981 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed him 20 points under risk factor 5 because the victim was between 11 and 16 years old ( see People v Caban , 61 AD3d 834 [2009]), 10 points under risk factor 12 because the defendant did not genuinely accept responsibility for the acts underlying his conviction ( see People v Velez , 100 AD3d 847 [2012]), 15 points under risk factor 14 because defendant was released without any parole, probation, or supervision ( see People v Radage , 98 AD3d 1194 [2012]), and 10 points under risk factor 15 because of the defendant’s history of homelessness and uncertainty with respect to his future living arrangements ( see People v Alemany , 13 NY3d 424 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Austin and LaSalle, JJ., concur..