You are here: / / SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND...
,

SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Sexual Assault Reform Act (Executive Law 258-c) (hereinafter SARA), as applied to the petitioner, was not shown to be so punitive in nature as to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Petitioner was convicted of a sex offense committed in 2000, before SARA was enacted. Upon release petitioner was deemed a Level One sex offender. SARA prohibits petitioner from living within 1000 feet of a school. In seeking a declaratory judgment/writ of prohibition finding SARA unconstitutional, petitioner argued the law virtually prohibits him from living and travelling in Brooklyn, where he had resided with his girlfriend:

​

The issue of whether it is permissible to retroactively apply SARA, which became effective on February 1, 2001, after the petitioner had committed the underlying sex offense, turns upon whether such application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution, which provides that “[n]o State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto Law” … . The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to “penal statutes which disadvantage the offender affected by them” … . “A statute will be considered an ex post facto law if it punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done,’ makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission,’ or deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed'”… . In contrast, a statute that is enacted for nonpunitive purposes, and is not so punitive in effect as to negate that nonpunitive intent, may be retroactively applied without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause … . * * *

​

The legislative history of SARA as originally enacted in 2000, as well as that of its 2005 amendment, make clear that it was intended to provide protection to children from the risk of recidivism by certain convicted sex offenders, rather than to punish such offenders for a past crime… . Indeed, the Court of Appeals, in analyzing the issue of whether the State has preempted the field of managing registered sex offenders, has stressed that SARA was part of “a detailed and comprehensive regulatory scheme involving the State’s ongoing monitoring, management and treatment of registered sex offenders, which . . . does not end when the sex offender is released from prison” … . Moreover, the petitioner has not shown by the “clearest proof” that the residency and travel restrictions imposed by SARA, as applied to him, are so punitive in their consequences as to transform the restrictions into punishment … . Accordingly, the retroactive application of SARA does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause as applied to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate “a clear legal right” to prohibition on that ground … , the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the petition/complaint. Matter of Devine v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 04114, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EX POST FACTO CLAUSE, SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/EX POST FACTO CLAUSE (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEX OFFENDERS (SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA) SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER FROM LIVING AND TRAVELING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE)

You might also like
UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT MADE A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT SUFFERED FROM SEXUAL SADISM DISORDER AND REMITTED THE MATTER; SUPREME COURT IGNORED THE FINDING AND HELD A NEW NONJURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES; SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT’S MANDATE (SECOND DEPT).​
Defendant Did Not Forfeit His Right to Counsel by Making Four Applications for Reassignment of Assigned Counsel/Evidence of Burglary and Criminal Mischief Insufficient–Possession of Stolen Items Not Enough
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Movie Theater Breached Its Duty to Protect Patrons from Assault
Question of Fact Whether Initial Broker Entitled to Commission
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING, DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, OR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; CRITERIA FOR PROVING EACH ISSUE EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE “UNDUE INFLUENCE” OBJECTION TO PROBATE OF A WILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REPORT WAS BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT... SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME...