People v. Bruno
This text of People v. Bruno (People v. Bruno) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Bruno
2026 NY Slip Op 02291
April 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Herbert Bruno, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 15, 2026
2023-04453
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Deborah A. Dowling
Lourdes M. Ventura
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jane Tully, J.), dated March 31, 2023, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted promoting prostitution in the second degree in connection with his conduct of serving as a driver for his codefendant and the 17-year-old complainant. The codefendant arranged for the complainant to have sexual intercourse with men in exchange for money, with the defendant receiving a fee for providing transportation for the complainant and the codefendant. Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level one sex offender. The defendant appeals.
The defendant's contention that SORA is unconstitutional as applied to him is without merit (see People v Knox, 12 NY3d 60; People v Douglas, 189 AD3d 1276; People v Suarez, 147 AD3d 802).
IANNACCI, J.P., DOWLING, VENTURA and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court