From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Distaffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 26, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. KA 09-00531.

March 26, 2010.

Appeal from an order of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), entered January 20, 2009. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

STEVEN D. SESSLER, GENESEO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Present: Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.


It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law § 168 et seq.) The People candidly concede that County 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 ( see People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819; cf. People v Ensell, 49 AD3d 1301, lv denied 10 NY3d 715). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing and risk level determination in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3).


Summaries of

People v. Distaffen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 26, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Distaffen

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PATRICK DISTAFFEN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 26, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 1597 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2634
896 N.Y.S.2d 919

Citing Cases

People v. Gutierrez–Lucero

Applying the foregoing to the facts of this case, we conclude that the defendant's due process rights were…

People v. Gonzalez

Here, the record contains no evidence that the defendant received notice of the hearing date. Thus, as the…