You are here: / / PETITIONER SOUGHT A REDUCTION OF HIS 1996 LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION...
,

PETITIONER SOUGHT A REDUCTION OF HIS 1996 LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION BUT COUNTY COURT DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT REQUESTING AN UPDATED RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS IN VIOLATION OF THE CORRECTION LAW; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court’s failure to request an updated recommendation from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders violated the Correction Law. Petitioner was classified a level three sex offender in 1996 and filed a petition to reduce his classification to level one:

The Correction Law requires that, upon receipt of such petition to modify a sex offender’s level of notification, “the court shall forward a copy of the petition to the [B]oard and request an updated recommendation pertaining to the sex offender” (Correction Law § 168-o [4]). Upon such a request, the Board must provide an updated recommendation … . Generally, only “[a]fter reviewing the recommendation received from the [B]oard and any relevant materials and evidence” may the court grant or deny the petition for modification … .

Notwithstanding these statutory mandates, the record reflects that County Court failed to comply with them. The parties acknowledged at oral argument that an updated recommendation from the Board was not requested. Furthermore, the court did not review an updated recommendation before denying defendant’s petition. Given that these procedural requirements of Correction Law § 168-o (4) were not met, the order must be reversed … . People v Kaminski, 2020 NY Slip Op 03431, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

You might also like
COMPUTER DESKTOP ENGINEER NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF JOB PLACEMENT SERVICE.
Hearing Officer’s Failure to Determine Why Three Witnesses Called by the Petitioner Purportedly Refused to Testify Required Annulment and Expungement of the Disciplinary Determination
GRANDMOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING AWARD OF CUSTODY OF GRANDCHILD TO HER, ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLES EXPLAINED.
PATIENT ADVOCATES WHO ACCOMPANY THE CLIENTS OF PERSONAL INJURY LAW FIRMS TO INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION CHARGED CRIMES WITH THE ELEMENT THAT THE VICTIM WAS LESS THAN 17; BOTH HAD THE WRONG BIRTH DATE FOR THE VICTIM WHICH THEREBY ALLEGED THE VICTIM WAS MORE THAN 17; THAT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY AMENDMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
Agency’s Failure to Follows Its Own Regulations Rendered Determination Arbitrary and Capricious
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AT SENTENCING THAT HE DIDN’T MEAN TO HURT THE VICTIM, RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT, PLEA VACATED DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE POSTALLOCUTION MOTION (THIRD DEPT).
Music Teachers Were Employees Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Criteria for Professionals, Like Musicians, Who Do Not Lend Themselves to Direct Supervision or Control, 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

THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION... JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND INSTRUCTED...