Buckingham start of OCR for page 1 == 528 false” identification (People v Agina, 18 NY3d 600, 603 [2012]). Furthermore, under the particular circumstances here, where the People also showed that defendant’s conduct with his sister and daughters not only sought sexual gratification from the sexual abuse, but reflected a motive to sexually “initiate” his younger female relatives, this evidence was also admissible as evidence of motive. The court also providently exercised its discretion in preclud- ing defendant’s girlfriend from testifying that one of the victims told her that she had witnessed another relative engage in sexual misconduct with the other victim. Regardless of whether the proffered testimony would have been admissible under the rules of evidence, its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or jury confusion (see People v Primo, 96 NY2d 351, 355-357 [2001]). The proffered testimony did not support a defense of third-party culpability, because it did not link the other relative to any crimes with which defendant was charged, and it was too remote and speculative to have any exculpatory value (see People v Gamble, 18 NY3d 386, 398-399 [2012]). We also conclude that the court’s ruling did not undermine its above-discussed ruling on uncharged crimes evidence. Finally, since defendant never asserted a constitutional right to introduce this evidence, his constitutional claim is unpreserved (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]). The challenged portions of the prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ. In the Matter of Dock Properties, LLC, et al., Respon- dents, v Department of Housing Preservation and Develop- ment of the City of New York et al., Appellants. [65 NYS3d 444]— Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered May 6, 2016, which granted petitioners’ motion to vacate and discharge respon- dents’ recorded notice of lien seeking relocation and administra- tive costs, and denied respondents’ cross motion to dismiss the ==End of OCR for page 1== ==Screenshot for page 2== 529 proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. As conceded by petitioners, based on the Court of Appeals’ recent holding in Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. (29 NY3d 45 [2017]), this dispute regarding the reasonableness of expenses claimed by respondents in an otherwise facially valid notice of lien must be resolved through a foreclosure trial, rather than a summary discharge proceed- ing (see id. at 50). Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Rivera, Appellant. [65 NYS3d 449]— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about January 6, 2016, which adjudicated de- fendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs. The Court properly assessed 20 points under the risk factor for the victim’s helplessness because she was asleep at the time of defendant’s initial assault began, and she woke up while defendant was on top of her (see People v Acevedo, 124 AD3d 500, 500 [1st Dept 2015]). We also find that there was no overassessment of points for this factor. The court also correctly assessed 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, based on defendant’s recent Tier III disciplinary infraction. The requirement of clear and convinc- ing evidence was satisfied by the undisputed existence of the infraction (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Paredes, 144 AD3d 609, 609 [1st Dept 2016]). Defendant’s constitutional challenge to this assessment is unpreserved, and is unavailing in any event. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments regarding this assessment. The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant defendant’s request for a downward departure to level two (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or that outweighed the seriousness of the underlying offense. ==End of OCR for page 2==

Case Information

In the Matter of DOCK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Respondents, v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

May 6, 2016

[65 NYS3d 444]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered May 6, 2016, which granted petitioners' motion to vacate and discharge respondents' recorded notice of lien seeking relocation and administrative costs, and denied respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the cross motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding.

As conceded by petitioners, based on the Court of Appeals' recent holding in Rivera v Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of N.Y. (29 NY3d 45 [2017]), this dispute regarding the reasonableness of expenses claimed by respondents in an otherwise facially valid notice of lien must be resolved through a foreclosure trial, rather than a summary discharge proceeding (see id. at 50). Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

Case Information

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v RICHARD RIVERA, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

January 6, 2016

[65 NYS3d 449]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about January 6, 2016, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Court properly assessed 20 points under the risk factor for the victim's helplessness because she was asleep at the time of defendant's initial assault began, and she woke up while defendant was on top of her (see People v Acevedo, 124 AD3d 500, 500 [1st Dept 2015]). We also find that there was no overassessment of points for this factor.

The court also correctly assessed 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, based on defendant's recent Tier III disciplinary infraction. The requirement of clear and convincing evidence was satisfied by the undisputed existence of the infraction (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Paredes, 144 AD3d 609, 609 [1st Dept 2016]). Defendant's constitutional challenge to this assessment is unpreserved, and is unavailing in any event. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments regarding this assessment.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant defendant's request for a downward departure to level two (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument, or that outweighed the seriousness of the underlying offense.

justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]).

The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]). Concur—Gische, J.P., Webber, Oing, Singh and Moulton, JJ.

Case Information

In the Matter of DOCK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Respondents, v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

[65 NYS3d 444]

Case Information

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v RICHARD RIVERA, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 449]

``` Wait, I need to provide only the raw HTML and I see multiple opinions. The prompt states: "If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document." In the PDF: Page 528 starts with the end of a previous case (People v Agina... People v Overlee). Then there is a caption for "In the Matter of Dock Properties...". This is a complete opinion (Order and judgment... unanimously reversed... Concur...). Then there is another caption for "The People of the State of New York v Richard Rivera...". This is also a complete opinion (Order... unanimously affirmed...). The prompt says "convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document." Since there are two full opinions following a partial one, I should convert the first full one: "In the Matter of Dock Properties, LLC". Let's re-read: "If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion...". Usually, "Main opinion" in this context refers to the first complete one encountered after skipping partial headers. I will convert "In the Matter of Dock Properties, LLC". Case 1: Dock Properties Case Name: In the Matter of DOCK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Respondents, v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants. Short Name: Matter of Dock Properties, LLC v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York Citation: 65 NYS3d 444 Court: Supreme Court, Bronx County (from order description, but the reporter is AD2d - Appellate Division First Department based on the "Concur" line judges Gische, Webber, Oing, Singh, Moulton - those are 1st Dept judges). Date: May 6, 2016 (entry date mentioned in order). Actually, looking at the layout, these are memorandum decisions from the Appellate Division, First Department. The citation [65 NYS3d 444] is for the Dock Properties case. The citation [65 NYS3d 449] is for the Rivera case. I will proceed with "In the Matter of Dock Properties, LLC". ```html

Case Information

In the Matter of DOCK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., Respondents, v DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

65 NYS3d 444

``` Wait, usually if a prompt says "Convert the provided legal document", and the document has two cases, usually it's better to provide the one that is clearly the "main" focus if one is, or the first one. Since they are both short memorandum opinions, I'll stick with the first complete one. Correction: The instructions say "For multi-opinion documents, convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body." If I am presented with a reporter page containing multiple items, the first complete one is usually the target. I will finalize the Dock Properties case. Wait, looking at the volume/page: 528-529. The first case on page 528 is the end of another case. The second case (Dock Properties) starts on 528 and ends on 529. The third case (Rivera) starts on 529 and continues. I will output Dock Properties. One detail: `midpage-court` "Appellate Division, First Department" isn't explicitly written as a header here (it's a reporter page), but the "Concur" line listing Gische, Webber, etc., confirms the court. The citation [65 NYS3d 444] is provided in brackets. I will also include the date from the order. One final check on attributes: `midpage-case-name`: shortName="Matter of Dock Properties, LLC v. Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York" `midpage-court`: court="N.Y. App. Div." `midpage-citation`: 65 NYS3d 444 HTML Output: