People v. Hayden

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated May 30, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied his application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-0 (2) for a modification of his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6-C.

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

On May 31, 2000, the defendant was convicted of one count of rape in the third degree, and sentenced to a term of five years probation. At that time, the defendant was also designated a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C. In 2012, the defendant made an application pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o (2) for a modification of his risk classification from level three to level one. The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s application, and we affirm.

Correction Law § 168-o (2) permits a sex offender required to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) to petition annually for modification of his risk level classification (see People v Lashway, 25 NY3d 478 , 483 [2015]; People v Palladino, 137 AD3d 1098 [2016]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112 , 125 [2011]). “The petitioner bears the burden of proving the facts supporting a requested modification by clear and convincing evidence” (People v Lashway, 25 NY3d at 483 ; see Correction Law § 168-o [2]; People v Wyatt, 89 AD3d at 125 ).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convine-

Leventhal, J.P., Miller, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.