You are here: / / CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE...
,

CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined whether defendant should have been adjudicated a sex offender was not reviewable in a SORA risk assessment proceeding. Defendant was convicted of unlawful surveillance for making cell phone videos under women's dresses on the subway. Pursuant to the statute, unlawful surveillance is a sex offense, However the defendant can make a motion asking the court to find registration as a sex offender too harsh under the particular circumstances:

We agree with the People that the statute does not give a SORA court the power to determine a motion under Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). While we find it significant that the provision assigns the duty of ruling on the motion to “the trial court” — notably the only time that phrase is used in SORA's numerous sections — we do not consider the use of the phrase to be a sufficient basis for our interpretation, because it is arguably malleable enough not to be limited to the court that actually presided over the defendant's trial. However, Correction Law § 168-d(1)(a), describing the “duties of the court,” provides a more definite indication of statutory intent, by way of language that clearly contemplates that certification as a sex offender occurs “upon conviction” and after consideration of any motion pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a(2)(e). Nothing else in the statutory scheme contradicts this understanding. People v Lema, 2018 NY Slip Op 00005, First Dept 1-2-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER (CERTIFICATION AS A SEX OFFENDER OCCURS UPON CONVICTION AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN A SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT WORK FOR; BASED ON DISPUTED EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE, DAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY SUPREME COURT; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, OVER A DISSENT, REVERSED, FINDING DAL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF ANY PROBLEMS WITH A DOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY MALFUNCTIONED CAUSING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO FALL OUT OF A WHEELCHAIR LIFT (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor and Chimney Repair Company— Smoke Was Entering Plaintiff’s Home
There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CASES ARE REVIEWED UNDER “NOTICE PLEADING” STANDARDS WHERE ONLY FAIR NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND ITS GROUNDS ARE REQUIRED; HERE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THAT A SUPERVISOR STATED SHE RECEIVED HIGH EVALUATIONS BECAUSE SHE ENGAGED IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER SUPERIORS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE DISMISSAL (FIRST DEPT).
Due Diligence Requirements for Nail and Mail Service Do Not Apply Under the New York City Charter, One Attempt at Personal Service and Use of Nail and Mail Method for a Notice of Violation (by the NYC Department of Buildings) Sufficient
A HEAVY STONE SLAB SLIPPED OUT OF A SLING AS IT WAS BEING HOISTED AND FELL ON PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW THE EQUIPMENT WAS DEFECTIVE AND DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW HE AND A CO-WORKER WERE NOT NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION UPHELD DESPITE INVALID WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL... EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS FALLING OBJECTS...