People v. Ruben, 65 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ruben, 65 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Smith, 103 A.D.3d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1027 Delay in sex offender registration and due process3 citing casesThe petitioner was convicted in 1982 of rape in the first degree. In 1996 a petition to adjudicate him a sex offender under the newly-enacted Sex Offender…opening of page *1027 (no citing court says what it cites this page for) · 2 listed here
  • People v. Smith, 103 A.D.3d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013).published 2 cites
    The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to due process of law by a delay in the commencement of the SORA proceeding is not properly before this Court since he failed to raise this argument before the Cou…
  • People v. Gonzalez, 69 A.D.3d 819 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010).published
    The defendant’s contention that the eight-year delay between his conviction and his adjudication as a sex offender improperly resulted in his being subject to a lifetime registration requirement under the law as enacted in 2002 (L 2002, ch…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Adam L. Ruben
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 8, 2009.
Published opinion
65 A.D.3d 1026
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), dated October 3, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[*1027] The petitioner was convicted in 1982 of rape in the first degree. In 1996 a petition to adjudicate him a sex offender under the newly-enacted Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C) (hereinafter SORA) was denied without prejudice to renewal. The application was not renewed until 2005. After a hearing, the petitioner was adjudicated a level three sex offender in 2007.

The petitioner argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right to substantive due process of law (see US Const Tenth, Fourteenth Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6) by the nine-year delay because he is subject now to a lifetime registration requirement under the law as enacted in 2002 (L 2002, ch 11, § 13), rather than to the 10-year registration requirement under the law that was in effect in 1996 (see Correction Law former § 168-h; L 1995, ch 192). The petitioner failed to raise this argument before the Supreme Court, and thus it is not properly before us on appeal.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (cf. People v Abdullah, 31 AD3d 515 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Dillon, Florio and Belen, JJ., concur.