registration requirement in New York

2016The court was required, as a matter of law, to designate defendant a sexually violent offender, both because of the registration requirement of his out-of-state conviction (see People v Macchia, 126 AD3d 458, 462 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]), and also because the conduct underlying that conviction matched the essential elements of the corresponding New York offense (see Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 753 [2007]).

2013The Sex Offender Registration Act is “not a penal statute and the registration requirement is not a criminal sentence” (Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]); registration under the statute is not designed to punish, “but rather to protect the public” (People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801 , 802 [2008]).

2024After an attorney's initial registration upon admission to the bar, the obligation to register is triggered by the attorney's birthdate every other year thereafter, and an attorney has a 30-day grace period following his or her birthdate in which to satisfy the obligation ( see Judiciary Law § 468-a [2]; Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [a]-[c]). [FN1] Since the registration requirement applies "for as long as the attorney remains duly admitted to the New York bar" (Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [a]-[c]), it may only be terminated by the attorney's death, disbarmen

2023Since the registration requirement applies "for as long as the attorney remains duly admitted to the New York bar" (Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [a]-[c]), it may only be terminated by the attorney's death, disbarment or formal resignation upon order of the Appellate Division ( see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). [FN1] The failure to duly register as an attorney "shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division . . . for disciplinary action" (Judiciary Law §

2022In People v Gravino ( 14 NY3d at 555-558 ), where the defendant was not advised at the time of her entering a plea of guilty that she would be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), the Court of Appeals held that SORA [*2]registration was a collateral consequence of the defendant's plea of guilty, not a direct consequence, and therefore her plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent despite her unawareness of the registration requirement at the time of her plea.

2022In the companion case of People v Ellsworth , where the defendant entered a plea of guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, the Court held that a condition of the defendant's 10-year period of probation forbidding him from associating with any child under the age of 18, including his own children, was a collateral consequence of the defendant's plea of guilty, not a direct consequence, and his unawareness of that condition did not prevent his plea from being knowing, voluntary, and intelligent ( see id. at 551-553, 558-559 ).

2024To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct (Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting [*2]the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 220 AD3d 1012 , 1013 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 208 AD3d 1421 , 1422 [3d Dept

2023To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct [*2]warranting the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 172 AD3d 1706 , 1707 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 65 AD3d 1447, 14

2024To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct (Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting [*2]the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 220 AD3d 1012 , 1013 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 208 AD3d 1421 , 1422 [3d Dept

2023To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct [*2]warranting the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 172 AD3d 1706 , 1707 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 65 AD3d 1447, 14

2013The Sex Offender Registration Act is “not a penal statute and the registration requirement is not a criminal sentence” (Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]); registration under the statute is not designed to punish, “but rather to protect the public” (People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801 , 802 [2008]).

2013The Sex Offender Registration Act is “not a penal statute and the registration requirement is not a criminal sentence” (Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]); registration under the statute is not designed to punish, “but rather to protect the public” (People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801 , 802 [2008]).

2023To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct [*2]warranting the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 172 AD3d 1706 , 1707 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 65 AD3d 1447, 14

2022To be sure, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice" as attorney misconduct ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that an attorney's failure to comply with his or her registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting the imposition [*2]of discipline ( see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 172 AD3d 1706 , 1707 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 65 AD3d 1447, 14

2024People v. Hakimi-Fard , 137 Misc 2d 116, 119 (Yonkers City Ct 1987).

2024People v. Hakimi-Fard , 137 Misc 2d 116, 119 (Yonkers City Ct 1987).

2013CPL 1.20 (13) defines “conviction” as the entry of a plea or verdict of guilty, which occurred here before defendant committed the underlying sex crime (see People v Wood, 60 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2009]; Matter of Smith v Devane, 73 AD3d 179, 182 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]; see also People v Montilla, 10 NY3d 663 [2008]).

2013CPL 1.20 (13) defines “conviction” as the entry of a plea or verdict of guilty, which occurred here before defendant committed the underlying sex crime (see People v Wood, 60 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2009]; Matter of Smith v Devane, 73 AD3d 179, 182 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]; see also People v Montilla, 10 NY3d 663 [2008]).

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013CPL 1.20 (13) defines “conviction” as the entry of a plea or verdict of guilty, which occurred here before defendant committed the underlying sex crime (see People v Wood, 60 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2009]; Matter of Smith v Devane, 73 AD3d 179, 182 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]; see also People v Montilla, 10 NY3d 663 [2008]).

2013CPL 1.20 (13) defines “conviction” as the entry of a plea or verdict of guilty, which occurred here before defendant committed the underlying sex crime (see People v Wood, 60 AD3d 1350 [4th Dept 2009]; Matter of Smith v Devane, 73 AD3d 179, 182 [3d Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]; see also People v Montilla, 10 NY3d 663 [2008]).

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime’ ” (People v Gravino, 14 NY3d 546, 556-558 [2010] [emphasis deleted], quoting Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]). 2 Accordingly, because the legislature intended the statute to be regulatory (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3

2019Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne , 69 NY2d 719, 721 [1987] [a nonpayment petition which did not allege compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law's registration requirement was "jurisdictionally defective"]; Gonzalez v Peterson , 177 Misc 2d 940, 941 [App Term, 1st Dept 1998], affd sub nom.

1988(Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne, 69 NY2d 719 ; Cobra Resources v Dumpl, Inc., 138 Misc 2d 91 .) The failure by an owner to plead compliance with the registration requirement of section 325 is amendable and the owner is not forever barred to recover rent for the period of noncompliance.

2017Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime; its aim is to ‘protect! ] communities by notifying them of the presence of individuals who may present a danger and enhancing law enforcement authorities’ ability to fight sex crimes’ ” (Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 752 [2007] [citation omitted]; People v Parilla, 109 AD3d 20 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 865 [2013]).

2013Rather than imposing punishment for a past crime, SORA is a remedial statute intended to prevent future crime” (People v Parilla, 109 AD3d 20, 23 [1st Dept 2013]; see also People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801, 802 [2008] [a SORA risk-level determination is a “collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public”]).

2024Even those errors, however, cannot deprive the court of jurisdiction. ( see 17th Holding LLC v Rivera , 195 Misc 2d 531, 532 [App Term, 2nd Dept. 2002], citing 433 West Associates v Murdock , 276 AD3d 360 , 360-61 [1st Dept. 2000] (failure to plead an "essential element" of the landlord's prima facie case "did not implicate the court's subject matter jurisdiction.")).

2024CPLR § 2001 may not have saved petitioners from the errors made in Forester (failure to state petitioner's interest in the property), Milne (failure allege compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law's registration requirement), and Giannini (bare conclusion that the premises were decontrolled). ( see Goldenberger v Westchester County Health Care Corp. , 16 NY3d 323, 326-27 [2011] (2007 revision of CPLR 2001... was meant to address mistakes in the "method" of filing, not mistakes in "what" was filed)).

2019Matter of Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne , 69 NY2d 719, 721 [1987] [a nonpayment petition which did not allege compliance with the Multiple Dwelling Law's registration requirement was "jurisdictionally defective"]; Gonzalez v Peterson , 177 Misc 2d 940, 941 [App Term, 1st Dept 1998], affd sub nom.

2016The court was required, as a matter of law, to designate defendant a sexually violent offender, both because of the registration requirement of his out-of-state conviction (see People v Macchia, 126 AD3d 458, 462 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 910 [2015]), and also because the conduct underlying that conviction matched the essential elements of the corresponding New York offense (see Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745, 753 [2007]).