[*1]
| People v Qureshi (Abdul) |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 50658(U) [31 Misc 3d 136(A)] |
| Decided on April 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Term, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be
published in the printed Official Reports. |
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST
DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ
.
The People of the State of New York,
Respondent,570401/09 - -
against
Abdul Jalil Qureshi,
Defendant-Appellant.
| APRIL 15, 2011 |
| SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST
DEPARTMENT | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | March
2011 Term |
Hunter, Jr., J.P., Schoenfeld, Torres, JJ.
The People of the State of
New York, NY County Clerk's No.
Respondent,570401/09
- against -
Abdul Jalil Qureshi,Calendar No. 09-351
Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York
County (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, which adjudicated him a level-two sex offender
under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).
Per Curiam.
Order (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, affirmed.
Defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a downward departure from
the presumptive level assigned to him under the risk assessment instrument (see People v Cullen,
60 AD3d 1466 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]).
Nor did he properly preserve for appellate review his contentions that his alleged familial
responsibilities and ill health constituted mitigating factors (see generally People v Cullen, 79
AD3d 1677 [2010]; People v Torres, 51 AD3d 531 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). In
any event, those contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant as
a level two sex offender (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d
at 545).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 15, 2011
Defendant appeals from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York
County (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, which adjudicated him a level-two sex offender
under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Art. 6-C).
Per Curiam.
Order (Barry Kamins, J.), dated April 7, 2009, affirmed.
Defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances warranting a downward departure
from the presumptive level assigned to him under the risk assessment instrument (see People
v Cullen, 60 AD3d 1466 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]; People v
Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). Nor did he properly preserve for appellate review his
contentions that his alleged familial responsibilities and ill health constituted mitigating factors
(see generally People v Cullen, 79 AD3d 1677 [2010]; People v Torres, 51 AD3d
531 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 703 [2008]). In any event, those contentions are without
merit.
Accordingly, Criminal Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant
as a level two sex offender (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v
Guaman, 8 AD3d at 545).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 15, 2011