You are here: / / PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION,...

PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, applying standard rules of statutory construction, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) had the authority to place petitioner, a level-three sex offender under post-release supervision, in residential corrections facilities pending the availability of Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) compliant housing (more 1000 feet from a school):

” Statutes which relate to the same subject matter must be construed together unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed'” … . “The courts must harmonize the various provisions of related statutes and . . . construe them in a way that renders them internally compatible'” … . “In the case of a conflict between a general statute and a special statute governing the same subject matter, the general statute must yield” … . “Finally, [a] construction rendering statutory language superfluous is to be avoided'” … . …

… [C]onstruing the relevant statutes together, DOCCS has authority to temporarily place a level three sex offender who has already completed more than six months of his or her postrelease supervision, as did the petitioner in this case, into residential treatment facility housing in the event such offender is unable to locate SARA-compliant community housing. Moreover, it is clear that DOCCS's authority to keep such an offender in residential treatment facility housing ends when the offender successfully identifies or otherwise obtains SARA-compliant community housing.  People v Warden, Westchester County Corr. Facility, 2018 NY Slip Op 05777, Second Dept 8-15-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDERS (POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION,  PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT))/SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA) (SEX OFFENDERS, POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, A CONDITION PRECEDENT; DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW A MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE THAT THE AREA OF THE FALL WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE SLIPPERY CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED HER EMPLOYER IN NEGLIGENCE BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A COWORKER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS IN THE COURSE OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR, PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A POLICE REPORT WHICH RAISED THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, BY SUBMITTING THE REPORT PLAINTIFF WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO INADMISSIBLE STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).
Contractual-Indemnification Cross Claim by Building Owners Against the Elevator Maintenance Company Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Relevant Criteria Explained

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

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY NAMING PLAINTIFF IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE... MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD...