You are here: / / HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS...
,

HOLDING SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.

The Fourth Department determined defendant's presence is required at a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing to determined defendant's risk level:

A sex offender has a due process right to be present at a SORA hearing … , and the court “violated the due process rights of defendant when it held the SORA hearing in his absence without verifying that he had received the letter notifying him of the date of the hearing and his right to be present” … . We are thus constrained to reverse the order and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a new hearing and sexually violent offender determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). People v Encarnacion, 2016 NY Slip Op 03369, 4th Dept 4-29-16


You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) APPROVED THE GAS PIPELINE, THE STATE DID NOT ISSUE A WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION (WQC) FOR THE PROJECT, THEREFORE THE PIPELINE COMPANY CAN NOT SEEK EASEMENTS OVER PRIVATE LAND PURSUANT TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL) TO INSTALL THE PIPELINE (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Inform Defendant of People’s Appeal of Trial Court’s Dismissal of His Indictment Required Grant of a Writ of Coram Nobis
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A DEFAULT IN RESPONDING TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Workers’ Compensation Carrier Has an Automatic Lien Re: Recovery by Injured Worker Against Third-Parties
Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed Issue to Be Determined in Arbitration
COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE “MADE WHOLE” RULE IN THIS SUBROGATION ACTION.
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO CORRECTION LAW 168-A (3)(B), WAS DESIGNATED A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” BASED SOLELY ON HIS OUT-OF-STATE CONVICTION OF A REGISTRABLE SEXUAL OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE; THE CORRECTION LAW AS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT VIOLATED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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

CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS... STATE WATER RESOURCES LAW DID NOT PREEMPT ZONING BOARD’S REQUIRING TOWN...