People v. BrittPeople v. Britt
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the hearing court properly assessed points for risk factor 7 because he was a stranger to the victim (see People v Lewis, 45 AD3d 1381 [2007]; People v Penson, 38 AD3d 866, 867 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]). Furthermore, the court properly assessed points for risk factor 11, given the defendant‘s
The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.
Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.