People v. Rodriguez

995 N.E.2d 178, 21 N.Y.3d 1030
New York Court of Appeals·Decided August 27, 2013·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that he did not receive 20 days’ notice prior to his sex offender designation proceeding as required under Correction Law § 168-n (3). His argument [1032]*1032that an adjournment of unspecified duration was required as a matter of due process is similarly unreviewable.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 995 N.E.2d 178, 21 N.Y.3d 1030 (N.Y. 2013).

995 N.E.2d 178 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Roberts
180 N.Y.S.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. McClinton
2017 NY Slip Op 6201 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Wells
138 A.D.3d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
The People v. Steven Lashway
34 N.E.3d 847 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
People v. Lashway
112 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)