From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Court of Appeals of New York.
Aug 27, 2013
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5719 (N.Y. 2013)

Opinion

2013-08-27

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Julio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Lisa A. Packard of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Lisa A. Packard of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York City (Patricia Curran of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that he did not receive 20 days notice prior to his sex offender designation proceeding as required under Correction Law § 168–n (3). His argument that an adjournment of unspecified duration was required as a matter of due process is similarly unreviewable. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Court of Appeals of New York.
Aug 27, 2013
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5719 (N.Y. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Julio RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of New York.

Date published: Aug 27, 2013

Citations

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5719 (N.Y. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5719
972 N.Y.S.2d 215
995 N.E.2d 178

Citing Cases

People v. Wells

In addition, the defendant did not argue that he was deprived of any due process protections because the…

People v. Sheppard

The defendant contends that he was deprived of his statutory and constitutional due process rights because…