You are here: / / SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENDERS SERVING A SENTENCE...
,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENDERS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR ONE OF THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED IN THE EXECUTIVE LAW AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, SINCE PETITIONER, WHO WAS A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, WAS SERVING A SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, THE SCHOOL-GROUNDS RESTRICTION DID NOT APPLY TO HIM (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Aarons, disagreeing with the 4th Department, determined that the restriction in the Executive Law prohibiting a sex offender from living within 1000 feet of a school only applied if the sentence being served at the time of release on parole is for one of the offenses enumerated in the statute. Defendant had previously been convicted of a sex offense and had been adjudicated a level three sex offender. But the offense for which he was incarcerated at the time of his release (burglary) is not an enumerated offense:

… [T]he statute is unambiguous and interpret it in the manner advanced by him. In this regard, we read “such person” as plainly and unequivocally referring to “a person serving a sentence for an offense defined in [Penal Law articles 130, 135 or 263 or Penal Law § 255.25, § 255.26 or 255.27]” (Executive Law § 259-c [14]). We are unpersuaded by respondent’s contention that “such person” in Executive Law § 259-c (14) can be rationally read to refer only to “a person” or “a person serving a sentence” as stated in the beginning of the statute and without regard to that part of the statute specifying various offenses. Based on the foregoing, we find that the school-grounds restriction provided in Executive Law § 259-c (14) applies either to (1) an offender serving one of the enumerated offenses whose victim was under 18 years old, or (2) an offender serving one of the enumerated offenses who was designated a risk level three sex offender. Because petitioner was not serving a sentence for an offense delineated in Executive Law § 259-c (14), the statute does not apply to him. People v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2019 NY Slip Op 01267, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

You might also like
VILLAGE BOARD DID NOT TAKE THE ‘HARD LOOK’ REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA), REVIEW WAS UNDERTAKEN TO FACILITATE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING GARAGE, VILLAGE DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS (THIRD DEPT).
Commissioner’s Finding Site Constituted a Significant Threat to Public Health or Environment Upheld
“Head Waiter” with Substantial Managerial Duties and “Wine Steward” Whose Duties Did Not Include Serving Customers Were Not Entitled to Share in the Servers’ and Bus Boys’ Tip Pool
A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING THAT REGULATIONS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER “MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS” BUT WHICH EXEMPT POLICIES PROVIDED BY “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS” DO NOT IMPAIR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION (THIRD DEPT).
SPECIAL FUND IS LIABLE FOR DEATH BENEFITS WHERE THE CLAIM WAS TRANSFERED TO THE SPECIAL FUND BEFORE THE FUND WAS CLOSED IN 2014 AND THE CLAIMANT DIED AFTER THE FUND WAS CLOSED (THIRD DEPT).
Where Jail Time Is Contemplated as Punishment for Disobeying an Order of Protection, the Standard of Proof for Willful Contempt is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
ALTHOUGH THE RECORD SUPPORTED FATHER’S PERMANENT NEGLECT AND THE TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISPENSED WITH THE DISPOSITIONAL HEARING ABSENT FATHER’S CONSENT; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF THE MURDER FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION (THIRD 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

PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROCURE ANOTHER ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT AFTER THE COURT... RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON...