People v. Distaffen

71 A.D.3d 1597, 896 N.Y.S.2d 919
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 2010·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), entered January 20, 2009. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals [1598]*1598from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.). The People candidly concede that County Court violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present (see People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819 [2010]; cf. People v Ensell, 49 AD3d 1301 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 715 [2008]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing and risk level determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.

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

People v. Distaffen, 71 A.D.3d 1597, 896 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

71 A.D.3d 1597 (People v. Distaffen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ENCARNACION, JOSUE, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
People v. Encarnacion
138 A.D.3d 1497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Gutierrez-Lucero
103 A.D.3d 89 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Gonzalez
90 A.D.3d 1005 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)