You are here: / / THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS...
,

THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, APPLIES TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS); THE DISSENT ARGUED SARA, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE ON PAROLE OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined the residency requirement of the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) is a mandatory condition of postrelease supervision (PRS) for sex offenders subject to SARA. The dissent argued the applicable statutes do not mention postrelease supervision (PRS) and, by their terms, apply only to defendants who are on parole or conditionally released:

In 1998, the legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act, amending the Penal Law to largely “abolish parole” for most felony offenses, including serious sexual offenses, and institute determinate terms of imprisonment to be followed by periods of postrelease supervision … . …[T]the legislature added Penal Law § 70.45 (3)—entitled “[c]onditions of post-release supervision”—which provides that the Board of Parole “shall establish and impose conditions of post-release supervision in the same manner and to the same extent as it may establish and impose conditions in accordance with the executive law upon persons who are granted parole or conditional release.” Further, Penal Law § 70.40 was amended to add references to postrelease supervision; namely Penal Law § 70.40 (1) (b) provides that “conditions of release including those governing postrelease supervision, shall be such as may be imposed by the [Parole Board] in accordance with the provisions of the executive law.” … . …

The SARA residency restriction bars offenders convicted of certain sex offenses from residing within 1,000 feet of a school (see Executive Law § 259-c [14] …). Specifically, it provides that, when certain offenders are “released on parole or conditionally released pursuant to subdivision one or two of this section,” the Parole Board “shall require, as a mandatory condition of such release, that such sentenced offender shall refrain from knowingly entering into or upon any school grounds … . …

Penal Law §§ 70.45 (3) and 70.40 (1) (b), when read together with SARA, mandate that the SARA residency restriction be applied equally to offenders released on parole, conditional release, or subject to a period of postrelease supervision. Matter of Alvarez v Annucci, 2022 NY Slip Op 01957 Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA), which prohibits certain sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school, does not apply to those under postrelease supervision (PRS).

 

You might also like
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).
Cannot Sue Vehicle Owner as Vicariously Liable Under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 Where Driver is Immunized from Suit Under Workers’ Compensation Law 29 (6)
Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specificity
TAX CERTIORARI PROCEEDING DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CANNOT BE RECOMMENCED PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE FOR “IMPAIRMENT” WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IN A RECENT VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE; IT WAS NOT CLEAR THE “IMPAIRMENT” CHARGE IN THE VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT “DRIVING WHILE ABILITY IMPAIRED BY DRUGS” CASE (CT APP).
Son’s Application for Succession to Mitchell-Lama Apartment Should Not Have Been Denied Because of Mother’s Failure to File Income Affidavit
Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial Information Clarified
AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT PROVISION CONSTITUTES “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH WILL SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (CT APP).

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

DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY... DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF...