People v. Arbi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arbi

143 A.D.3d 423, 38 N.Y.S.3d 417

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

Docket1804 544/13

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A.D.3d 423 (People v. Arbi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Arbi, 143 A.D.3d 423, 38 N.Y.S.3d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level one sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly designated defendant a sexually violent offender because he was convicted of an enumerated offense, and the court lacked discretion to do otherwise (see People v Bullock, 125 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 915 [2015]). We decline to revisit our holding in Bullock. Defendant’s due process argument is unpreserved and without merit.

Concur- — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level one sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly designated defendant a sexually violent offender because he was convicted of an enumerated offense, and the court lacked discretion to do otherwise (see People v Bullock, 125 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 915 [2015]). We decline to revisit our holding in Bullock. Defendant’s due process argument is unpreserved and without merit.

Concur- — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D.3d 423, 38 N.Y.S.3d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arbi-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack