You are here: / / SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A...
, ,

SCHOOL-GROUNDS-PROXIMITY-RESIDENCE PROHIBITION APPLIED TO PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAROLED WAS BURGLARY; SECOND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS; APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and disagreeing with the Third and Fourth Departments, determined Executive Law 259-c (14), which prohibits sex offenders from entering school grounds, applied to petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioner had been designated a level three sex offender and was subsequently arrested and incarcerated for burglary. He was not released on parole for the burglary conviction when his sentence was complete because housing which complied with the school-grounds condition could not be found. Although the habeas corpus petition was moot because defendant had been released at the time of the appeal, the exception to the mootness doctrine allowed appellate review:

Executive Law § 259-c(14) provides, in relevant part, that “where 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] and the victim of such offense was under the age of [18] at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a level three sex offender pursuant to [Correction Law § 168-l(6)], is released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to [Executive Law § 259-c(1) or (2)], the [Board of Parole] shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds, as that term is defined in [Penal Law § 220.00(14)], . . . while one or more of such persons under the age of [18] are present.”

As a result of its inartful wording and use of the term “such person,” Executive Law § 259-c(14) has been interpreted in opposing fashion by the Appellate Division, Third Department (see People ex rel. Negron v Superintendent Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 170 AD3d 12) and the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see People ex rel. Garcia v Annucci, 167 AD3d 199). Inasmuch as the statute is amenable to competing interpretations, we agree with the appellants that the language of the statute is ambiguous and should be interpreted with reference to its legislative history and the purpose of the enactment of the 2005 amendment … . The legislative history clearly supports an interpretation that imposes the SARA [Sexual Assault Reform Act]-residency requirement based on either an offender’s conviction of a specifically enumerated offense against an underage victim or the offender’s status as a level three sex offender … . People ex rel. Rosario v Superintendent, Fishkill Corr. Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 01178, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

You might also like
Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–No Notice of Wet Condition Where Plaintiff Fell
ONLY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING THE GRAND JURY CAN ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES; IN ORANGE COUNTY THE COURT CHARGED WITH EMPANELING GRAND JURIES IS COUNTY COURT; THEREFORE THE PETITON FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROHIBITING A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FROM ORDERING THE RELEASE OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED PRIOR TO A FACT-FINDING HEARING IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROCEED ON A THEORY NOT RAISED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Refusal to Allow Defendant to Inspect His Laptop Computer, Evidence from Which Was Central to the People’s Case, Was Reversible Error
UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CONVERSION DOES NOT LIE WHEN PROPERTY INVOLVED IS REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED A ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC ADRENALECTOMY; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON WHO WAS EXPERIENCED IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY, BUT NOT ROBOTIC SURGERY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING; THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE WITH ROBOTIC SURGERY WENT TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY (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

PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S... JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION...