You are here: / / SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause...
,

SORA Amendments Did Not Render Statute Punitive—Ex Post Facto Clause Not Applicable​

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department determined the amendments to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) did not render the statute punitive and thereby violate the Ex Post Facto Clause or violate the Double Jeopardy prohibition with respect to the defendant:

It may be true that subjecting sex offenders to lifetime registration and notification requirements, with their attendant obligations and restrictions, increases the difficulties and embarrassment a sex offender may endure, even where he has led a law-abiding life since his conviction. However, in assessing the constitutionality of a statute, this Court does not review the merits or wisdom of the Legislature’s decisions on matters of public policy …, and the fact that the restrictions are difficult and cumbersome is not enough to make them unconstitutional. Although “one can argue that such laws are too extreme or represent an over-reaction to the fear of sexual abuse of children, . . . they do not violate the ex post facto clause . . . . People v Parilla, 2013 NY Slip Op 03931, 1st Dept, 5-30-13

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CONTRACT, QUANTUM MERUIT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
TESTIMONY AT THE FACT FINDING HEARING ABOUT THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE IT DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FORM.
MERELY QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS’ $96,000, CONSTITUTING TWO MONTHS’ RENT AND A SECURITY DEPOSIT, WAS TRANSFERRED TO DEFENDANT FROM AN ATTORNEY’S IOLA ACCOUNT, THE $96,000 CONSTITUTED AN “IDENTIFIABLE FUND” WHICH DEFENDANT “CONVERTED” WHEN IT WAS NOT RETURNED (FIRST DEPT).
Falling Block Not Shown to Be Related to the Failure of a Safety Device—Labor Law 240(1) Did Not Apply
DEFENDANT, WHICH OPERATED A STUDY-ABROAD PROGRAM, OWED A DUTY OF CARE TO INJURED STUDENT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE PROOF ON CAUSATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT ISSUE NEVER SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF MATERIAL STACKED ON A FLATBED TRUCK.
THE COMPLAINT WAS NEVER PROPERLY AMENDED TO ADD DEFENDANT AS A PARTY PURSUANT TO CPLR 1003 OR CPLR 3025 REQUIRING DISMISSAL (FIRST 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

Failure to Get Court’s Permission to Represent to a Grand Jury Required Dismissal... A Default Judgment Not Supported by “Proof of the Facts Constituting the Claim”...