You are here: / / IN THESE THREE CASES, CONFINING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE...
,

IN THESE THREE CASES, CONFINING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM PRISON UNTIL COMPLIANT HOUSING IS AVAILABLE WAS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over two separate dissenting opinions, determined, in the three cases before the court, confining level three sex offenders who are eligible for release from prison until compliant housing is available was not a constitutional violation:

In these appeals, we consider constitutional challenges to the practice of temporarily confining level three sex offenders in correctional facilities, after the time they would otherwise be released to parole or postrelease supervision (PRS), while they remain on a waiting list for accommodation at a shelter compliant with Executive Law § 259-c (14). In each case, we conclude that there was no constitutional violation. People ex rel. Johnson v Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 06934, CtApp 11-23-20

 

You might also like
Judge’s Speaking to a Juror During Deliberations, With Defense Counsel’s Permission, Outside the Presence of the Defendant and Counsel, Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal
Fact that Property Has a Use “Auxiliary or Incidental to the Main Exempt Purpose” Does Not Defeat the Real Property Tax Exemption Under RPTL 420-a
Defendant Who Was Not Informed His Guilty Plea Would Result in Deportation Was Unable to Demonstrate He Was Prejudiced by the Omission
Question of Fact Whether a “Special Relationship” Had Developed Such that the Insurance Broker Might Be Liable for Negligent Advice About Coverage
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN A DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACTION PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (H) ARE LIMITED TO THREE TIMES ACTUAL DAMAGES (CT APP).
PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.

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

SEX OFFENDERS SUBJECT TO POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION MAY BE HOUSED IN A RESIDENTIAL... BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES AT ISSUE, THE EXCESS INSURER...