You are here: / Criminal Law
, ,

THERE IS NO FEDERAL SEX-OFFENDER-REGISTRATION REGIME; THEREFORE A FEDERAL CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A “FELONY IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION FOR WHICH THE OFFENDER IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” BASED UPON THE “FOREIGN-FELONY” PROVISION OF THE CORRECTION LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined defendant should not have been classified as a sexually violent offender because his federal child pornography conviction did not require registration as a sex offender. The Correction Law defines a “sexually violent offender” to include a defendant who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign jurisdiction and is required to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction. Because there is no federal sex-offender-registration regime, the foreign-conviction provision of the Correction Law does not apply here:

The primary issue on this appeal from a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment determination is whether defendant was properly designated as a sexually violent offender under Correction Law § 168-a (3). SORA defines three circumstances under which such a designation is appropriate. Relevant here is the third circumstance: where a defendant stands convicted of “a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (Correction Law § 168-a [3] [b]). A plain reading of the statutory language, and application of our precedent in this area, establish that defendant was not required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which his conviction occurred and, therefore, was improperly designated as sexually violent. * * *

Applying the clear and unambiguous statutory language in this case, defendant cannot be designated as “sexually violent” because he was not required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which his conviction occurred. This is so because the federal government does not maintain a sex offender registry of the sort that states are required to operate by federal mandate. Although the federal government maintains two sex offender databases, the information contained in them merely represents a collection of registration information acquired from registries maintained by individual state and territorial jurisdictions (see 34 USC § § 20921; 20922). People v Sherlock, 2025 NY Slip Op 02966, CtApp 5-15-25

Practice Point: There is no federal sex-offender-registration regime. Therefore a federal child pornography conviction does not constitute a “felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender” within the meaning of the Correction Law. Therefore a federal child pornography conviction does not trigger a “sexually violent offender” SORA designation.

 

,

DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR REQUIRED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE; IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY AND THE ELICITATION OF AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSURANCE OF THE ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL, THE DENIAL OF THE CHALLENGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions and ordering a new trial, determined that a for-cause challenge to a juror should have been should have been granted:

… [T]he People provided evidence that the defendant had engaged in a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and embarrassment over a period of more than two years in which he, inter alia, shared nude photographs and sexually explicit videos of the complainant with her family and employers, accessed the complainant’s social media accounts and posted similarly explicit material, and repeatedly called emergency service providers and requested emergency responses to the complainant’s home in Queens. * * *

… [D]uring voir dire, prospective juror No. 16, J. M., acknowledged a prior experience being a defendant in what he characterized as a “frivolous” civil suit. J. M. initally stated that he did not “think” his experience would affect his ability to evaluate the case fairly, and then later affirmed that he could not give his complete assurance that he would be able to put the experience aside. Based on the totality of the record, these statements raised a serious doubt about J. M.’s ability to be impartial. At that point, it was incumbent upon the Supreme Court to conduct a follow-up inquiry to elicit some unequivocal assurance of J. M.’s ability to be impartial or to excuse the prospective juror … . Since the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges, the denial of his for-cause challenge to J. M. constitutes reversible error … . People v Wilson, 2025 NY Slip Op 02940, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: If a juror cannot state he or she will be able to evaluate the case fairly, the judge must make an attempt to elicit an unequivocal assurance of the juror’s ability to be impartial. Absent such an unequivocal assurance, the denial of defendant’s for cause challenge is reversible error (where, as here, all of defendant’s peremptory challenges have been exhausted).

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE INFORMANT WHO CALLED 911 ABOUT A “MAN WITH A GUN” WAS KNOWN TO THE POLICE AND MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE RELIABLE, THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING ABOUT THE BASIS FOR THE INFORMANT’S KNOWLEDGE; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE POLICE HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP THE DEFENDANT; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the suppression motion should have been granted. Although the informant who made the 911 call was known to the police, there was no testimony at the suppression hearing about the basis of the informant’s knowledge. The stop of defendant’s vehicle for failure to use a turn signal did not justify removing defendant from the vehicle and handcuffing him:

When the People seek to rely on information provided by an informant to establish the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a vehicle stop, “‘it [is] essential that at least some showing be made of the basis of the informant’s knowledge'” … . Where there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant knew the defendant was engaged in illegality, such as the possession of a weapon, reasonable suspicion cannot be found … .

… Neither the sergeant nor the officer testified as to how the informant, who had called the 911 emergency number, knew that the defendant had a gun. Therefore, the People failed to demonstrate that the information provided by the informant constituted “more than unsubstantiated rumor, unfounded accusation or conclusory characterization” … .

In the absence of the People eliciting testimony at the suppression hearing that sufficiently explained how the informant knew the defendant was in possession of a weapon, the County Court erred in concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant … . Moreover, while the informant did identify the defendant from across the street, this identification occurred well after the defendant had been stopped and detained by the officers. “‘Where a police encounter is not justified in its inception, it cannot be validated by a subsequently acquired suspicion'” … .

… [W]hile the informant, who was known to the responding officers, may be presumed to be reliable, the basis of his knowledge was not sufficiently established at the suppression hearing. People v Thomison, 2025 NY Slip Op 02938, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: At a suppression hearing, the People have the burden to prove the legality of the police conduct. Where an informant known to the police calls 911 to report a “man with a gun,” the reliability of the informant may be presumed. But the People must still prove the basis for the informant’s knowledge. Where, as here, there is no testimony demonstrating how the informant learned about the “man with a gun,” the People have not met their burden of proof.

 

,

IN THIS STREET-STOP-FRISK CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED HE SAW DEFENDANT PUT A BLACK OBJECT IN HIS JACKET POCKET, BUT HE DID NOT TESTIFY HE HAD A REASONABLE SUSPICION THE OBJECT WAS A FIREARM; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP AND FRISK; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECON DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of the suppression motion in this street-stop case, determined the police officer, Espinal, did not have a reasonable suspicion that the object defendant put in his pocket was a firearm. Therefore the officer did not have a sufficient reason to grab defendant’s pocket:

While driving down 193rd Street toward a dead end, Detective Espinal spotted a vehicle illegally parked in the middle of the dead end’s cul-de-sac. Detective Espinal testified that there appeared to be an individual in the driver’s seat and another individual standing outside the vehicle by the driver’s window. Detective Espinal observed that the individual standing outside the vehicle, who was later identified as the defendant, was holding a black object in his right hand, although Detective Espinal could not identify the object. Detective Espinal testified that when the defendant made eye contact with him, the defendant put the object into the right front pocket of the jacket that he was wearing and proceeded to walk toward the police vehicle with his hands in his jacket pockets. As the defendant continued to walk toward the police vehicle, Detective Espinal exited the vehicle and directed the defendant to take his hands out of his jacket pockets and put his hands up. Although the defendant initially complied, as Detective Espinal got closer, the defendant began to reach down toward his right jacket pocket. Upon seeing the defendant reach for his jacket pocket, Detective Espinal grabbed the pocket and felt a firearm inside. Detective Espinal withdrew a firearm from the defendant’s pocket and instructed one of his partners to place the defendant under arrest. * * *

… Detective Espinal did not have the required reasonable suspicion to frisk the defendant. Detective Espinal’s testimony is clear. He saw the defendant outside the illegally parked vehicle and watched as the defendant placed a black object in his jacket pocket. Detective Espinal did not testify as to what he thought the object was or whether he had any reasonable suspicion to believe that the object was a weapon of any kind, let alone a firearm. The only instance of illegality that Detective Espinal testified to was the illegally parked vehicle, which would not have provided the officers with a basis to frisk the defendant … . People v Taylor, 2025 NY Slip Op 02937, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: The People have the burden of demonstrating the legality of the police conduct in a stop and frisk. Here the officer testified he saw defendant put a black object in his pocket, but he did not testify he suspected the object was a firearm. The fact that the incident took place in a high-crime area was not enough to provide reasonable suspicion sufficient for a stop and frisk.​

 

,

THE INITIAL JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS INCORRECT; ALTHOUGH THE CORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN, THE INCORRECT INSTRUCTION WAS NEVER WITHDRAWN; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s convictions on several counts and ordering a new trial, determined that the judge committed reversible error by not withdrawing the original erroneous justification jury instruction. Subsequently giving the correct jury instruction without withdrawing the initial incorrect jury instruction requires reversal:

Supreme Court’s initial jury instruction charging the justified use of ordinary physical force was erroneous under the circumstances. As the People acknowledge on appeal, the only possible justification defense available to the defendant based on the evidence presented at trial would have been a charge of justified use of deadly physical force (Penal Law § 35.15[2] …). Although the court eventually furnished a proper charge on the justified use of deadly physical force to the deliberating jury, it did not withdraw its previous justification instruction, thereby leaving the jury with competing charges on a material issue. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to conclude that the jury rendered its verdict with a complete and accurate understanding of the applicable law. “Inasmuch as it is impossible to determine the basis for the jury’s verdict, there must be a reversal” … . People v Cherry, 2025 NY Slip Op 02930, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: If a judge gives an incorrect jury instruction, it is not sufficient to subsequently give the correct instruction. The erroneous instruction must be explicitly withdrawn.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S STEPMOTHER COULD NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK, WHICH WAS IN THE STEPMOTHER’S APARTMENT, BECAUSE THE POLICE KNEW THE BACKPACK BELONGED TO DEFENDANT; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM A LOWER COURT RULING ON A GROUND NOT RULED ON BY THE LOWER COURT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court and dismissing the indictment, determined defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm seized from a backpack should have been granted. The police knew the backpack, which was in his stepmother’s apartment, belonged to the defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search. That First Department noted that the arguments raised by the People for the first time on appeal (defendant had abandoned the backpack and the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied) could not be considered because the lower court did not rule on them (a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction):

Supreme Court incorrectly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence recovered from defendant’s bag based on his stepmother’s consent to search her apartment … . The testimony at the hearing was explicit that the officer conducting the search knew that the bag belonged to defendant and not defendant’s stepmother before he picked it up and felt what he believed to be a firearm inside. Therefore, she did not “possess[] common authority over . . . [the] effects sought to be inspected”—here, defendant’s backpack—and could not consent to a search of it … .

While the People argue, in the alternative, that defendant was trespassing and abandoned the bag when he left it in the apartment to surrender himself to the police, they did not advance this argument before the suppression court, and they are foreclosed from doing so now … . The same is true of their argument that search of the bag was permissible under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement … . Furthermore, the hearing court did not rule on these issues in denying suppression, “and therefore did not rule adversely against defendant on this point” … . Thus, this Court “lacks jurisdiction to affirm the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress” the firearm on this alternative ground … . People v Gonzalez, 2025 NY Slip Op 02883, First Dept 5-13-25

Practice Point: Here defendant’s backpack was in defendant’s stepmother’s apartment. The police knew the backpack belonged to defendant. Therefore defendant’s stepmother could not consent to the search of the back pack.​

Practice Point: Here the People sought to affirm the lower court’s denial of the suppression motion on grounds which where not raised or ruled upon by the motion court. The appellate court does not have jurisdiction to affirm on a ground not ruled upon by the lower court.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL BASED UPON COUNSEL’S REMARK THAT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS UNWARRANTED; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A SUFFICIENT INQUIRY BY THE JUDGE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s appeal waiver was invalid, defendant demonstrated a conflict of interest on assigned counsel’s part, and the judge did not conduct a proper inquiry about defendant’s requests for new counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea. The Third Department vacated defendant’s sentence, not the conviction or plea, and remitted the matter for the assignment of new counsel and an inquiry about defendant’s request for substitute counsel and his request to withdraw his plea:

At sentencing, the Conflict Defender explained that she had “numerous phone conversations” with defendant about the grounds for his motion — namely, that assigned counsel’s communication of the People’s plea offer amounted to coercion; that defendant’s learning disability had prevented him from comprehending the consequences of his plea; and that the Conflict Defender was herself conflicted out of representing defendant. Based on her conversations with defendant, the Conflict Defender stated to County Court, “I don’t believe there is anything that warranted [defendant] withdrawing a plea, so I didn’t file a motion” … . “While apparently inadvertent, counsel’s remark . . . affirmatively undermined arguments her client wished the court to review, thereby depriving defendant of effective assistance of counsel” … , and the court should have relieved the Conflict Defender and assigned new counsel to represent defendant on the motion … .

We also agree with defendant that the allegations of assigned counsel’s ineffectiveness were sufficiently serious and factually specific to trigger County Court’s duty to consider his request for substitute counsel … . An indigent defendant’s right to court-appointed representation “does not encompass a right to appointment of successive lawyers at defendant’s option” … . “Rather, a defendant may be entitled to new counsel only upon showing good cause for a substitution, such as a conflict of interest or other irreconcilable conflict with counsel” … . * * *

In addition to alleging that assigned counsel coerced him into pleading guilty, defendant’s letters to County Court asserted that assigned counsel failed to visit him in jail or discuss his case with him; dodged his phone calls on specific dates; sent other attorneys to represent defendant who did not seem to be knowledgeable about the case; intended to oppose any motion defendant made to substitute counsel; and told defendant that his only other options for representation were to hire private counsel or represent himself. Further, defendant indicated that assigned counsel misadvised defendant about his sentencing exposure in a prior case, resulting in an appeal from that conviction on the ground of assigned counsel’s ineffectiveness. Defendant also alleged that assigned counsel was not relaying information or following his instructions in representing him in a separate, contemporaneous criminal action against him. Reading defendant’s allegations of ineffectiveness in the context of defendant’s purported history with assigned counsel, defendant’s complaints set out a plausible claim that the trust and communication between him and assigned counsel had broken down irretrievably … . Faced with these complaints, the court was required to “make at least a minimal inquiry, and discern meritorious complaints from disingenuous applications by inquiring as to the nature of the disagreement or its potential for resolution” … . People v Ubrich, 2025 NY Slip Op 02824, Third Dept 5-8-25

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s remark that defendant’s request to withdraw his plea was unwarranted demonstrated a conflict of interest requiring the assignment of new counsel.

Practice Point: Here defendant raised serious issues about assigned counsel’s representation requiring the judge to consider his request for substitute counsel.

Practice Point: Here defendant raised serious issues in support of his request to withdraw his guilty plea which required an inquiry by the judge.

 

, ,

THE EIGHT-AND-A-HALF-MONTH DELAY BETWEEN THE JUVENILE’S ARREST AND THE FILING OF THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DEPRIVED THE JUVENILE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the order of disposition in this juvenile delinquency proceeding, determined the juvenile, Adonis J W, was deprived of his constitutional right to due process by the eight-and-a-half-month delay between his arrest and the filing of the petition:

“The due process right to a speedy trial extends to respondents in juvenile delinquency proceedings” … . “An unreasonable delay in prosecuting a juvenile delinquency proceeding following a respondent’s arrest can constitute a violation of due process” … . “To determine whether a respondent’s due process rights were violated by a delay in filing, the court must engage in a balancing of factors, including the extent of the delay, the reason for the delay, the nature of the underlying charge, whether there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration, and whether there is any indication of prejudice to the defense resulting from the delay” … . “When applying this balancing test, ‘courts must remain acutely cognizant of the goals, character and unique nature of juvenile proceedings'” … . “‘[T]he central goal of any juvenile proceeding—rehabilitation of the juvenile through prompt intervention and treatment—can seem trivialized when a presentment agency delays the filing of a petition'” … .

Here, while the charges were serious and Adonis J. W. did not demonstrate any actual prejudice to his defense attributable to the delay in filing the petition, the presentment agency failed to establish a legitimate reason for the delay. Additionally, the ultimate goal of promptly treating and rehabilitating Adonis J. W. was not furthered by permitting a fact-finding hearing on the petition following the unjustified delay. Matter of Adonis J. W., 2025 NY Slip Op 02788, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: The constitutional speedy trial rights apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings.

 

, ,

THE DOCTRINE OF ABATEMENT AB INITIO REMAINS VALID; WHERE A DEFENDANT DIES BEFORE THE CONVICTION BECOMES FINAL THROUGH THE APPELLATE PROCESS VACATION OF THE CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IS REQUIRED; HERE BOTH DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND DIED BEFORE SENTENCING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed Supreme Court in two consolidated cases in which the People unsuccessfully argued the doctrine of abatement ab initio should no longer be followed. The doctrine provides that where a defendant dies before the appellate process is complete the conviction is vacated and the indictment dismissed:

In these consolidated cases (People v Ricardo Cruciani and People v Jessie Nowell), the People, as the appellant, raise similar questions: Whether we should decline to follow, in the particular circumstances of each case, the common-law doctrine of abatement ab initio, which was first pronounced by the Court of Appeals in People v Mintz (20 NY2d 770 [1967]). The abatement ab initio doctrine seeks to protect a defendant’s constitutional due process rights that are afforded by appellate review of a conviction (see People v Matteson, 75 NY2d 745, 747 [1989]). Under this doctrine, the death of a defendant whose conviction has not become final through the appellate process results in the abatement of not only any pending appeal but also all proceedings from the case’s inception. In Cruciani, defendant’s conviction resulted from a jury verdict, but he died before sentencing. In Nowell, defendant’s conviction resulted from a guilty plea, but he died before sentencing. In each case, the trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment pursuant to the abatement ab initio doctrine. People v Cruciani, 2025 NY Slip Op 02735, First Dept 5-6-25

Practice Point: The doctrine of abatement ab initio requires the vacation of the conviction and dismissal of the indictment where a defendant dies before the appellate process is complete.

 

, , ,

THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT TO PROCURE A RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; YET DEFENSE COUNSEL FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING AS AN ADULT AND ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE “YOUTHFUL OFFENDER” ISSUE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reserving decision on the appeal and remitting the matter again, determined defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The sole purpose for initially remitting the matter to Supreme Court was to procure a ruling on whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. But defense counsel focused only on defendant’s sentencing as an adult and essentially ignored the “youthful offender” issue. The Fourth Department offered a concise description of the New York State (as opposed to the federal) criteria for ineffective assistance:

Where, as here, a defendant contends that they received ineffective assistance of counsel under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, “we evaluate the claim using the state standard, which affords greater protection than its federal counterpart” … . “In New York, the standard for effective assistance is ‘meaningful representation’ by counsel” … . The ” ‘state standard . . . offers greater protection than the federal test’ because, ‘under our State Constitution, even in the absence of a reasonable probability of a different outcome, inadequacy of counsel will still warrant reversal whenever a defendant is deprived of [fair process]’ … . Although our courts “remain ‘skeptical’ of ineffective assistance of counsel claims where the defendant is unable to demonstrate any prejudice at all” … , in applying our state standard, we consider prejudice to be ” ‘a significant but not indispensable element in assessing meaningful representation’ ” … . Stated differently, “[w]hile the inquiry focuses on the quality of the representation provided to the [defendant], the claim of ineffectiveness is ultimately concerned with the fairness of the process as a whole rather than its particular impact on the outcome of the case” … . “[T]he right to effective representation includes the right to assistance by an attorney who has taken the time to review and prepare both the law and the facts relevant to the defense . . . and who is familiar with, and able to employ[,] . . . basic principles of criminal law and procedure” … . Inasmuch as the defendant “bears the burden of establishing [a] claim that counsel’s performance is constitutionally deficient[,] . . . [the] defendant must demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s alleged failure” … . * * *

The record establishes that, despite the specified purpose of the remittal, defense counsel submitted a memorandum riddled with spelling, grammatical, and syntax errors in which he requested that defendant be resentenced as an adult to a reduced determinate term of imprisonment and an unspecified period of postrelease supervision. Rather than providing an affirmative argument for adjudicating defendant a youthful offender based on the various factors to be considered … , defense counsel merely mentioned youthful offender status in passing to note that which was already known, namely, that the sentencing court had originally failed to address whether defendant should receive youthful offender status and thus never considered certain circumstances related to defendant. Defense counsel thereafter proceeded to make arguments that were relevant to defendant’s initial sentencing as an adult and the appellate challenges thereto but were unrelated to the factors applicable to determining upon remittal whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status and, in doing so, defense counsel also occasionally misstated the issues considered on defendant’s prior appeals … . People v Nathan, 2025 NY Slip Op 02700, Fourth Dept 5-2-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a concise description of the criteria for effective assistance of counsel under the New York State (as opposed to the United States) Constitution.

 

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