risk level assessment hearing in New York

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2013Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2012The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s own testimony at the risk level assessment hearing established that the defendant had a history of alcohol and drug abuse (see People v Crandall, 90 AD3d 628, 629 [2011]; People v Murphy, 68 AD3d 832, 833 [2009]; People v Williams, 34 AD3d 662, 663 [2006]; People v Masters, 19 AD3d 387 [2005]).

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court was statutorily required to hold a risk level assessment hearing after receiving the recommendation of the Board of Examiners regarding the defendant’s level of notification (see Correction Law § 168-n [1], [2]; Matter of Churuti v Devane, 29 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2006]; People v Peters, 27 AD3d 784 [2006]).

2006Here, County Court was statutorily required to convene a risk level assessment hearing after receiving the Board’s recommendation (see Correction Law § 168-k [2]; see also People v Peters, 27 AD3d 784, 784 [2006]).

2025Second, the reason was that outlined in Meltzer : "The Supreme Court did not err in conducting the risk level assessment hearing after the defendant had moved back to New Jersey". 88 AD3d at 1001.

2023Under these circumstances, we reverse the order and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter ( see People v Worley , 40 NY3d at 136; People v Montufar-Tez , 195 AD3d 1052, 1053-1054 ).

2015Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n (3). “ ‘A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819, 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; Peop

2011Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court was statutorily required to hold a risk level assessment hearing after receiving the recommendation of the Board of Examiners regarding the defendant’s level of notification (see Correction Law § 168-n [1], [2]; Matter of Churuti v Devane, 29 AD3d 1139, 1141 [2006]; People v Peters, 27 AD3d 784 [2006]).

2011Thus, as the People correctly concede, the defendant’s due process rights were violated, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-d (3) (see People v Arrahman, 83 AD3d at 680 ; People v Distaffen, 71 AD3d 1597, 1598 [2010]; People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819 [2010]).

2011The Supreme Court did not err in conducting the risk level assessment hearing after the defendant had moved back to New Jersey, as the dual purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), which are to monitor sex offenders’ whereabouts and to aid law enforcement in prosecuting recidivist offenders, would be frustrated if they were to cease when a registered sex offender moves out of the state (see Matter of Doe v O’Donnell, 86 AD3d 238, 241-242 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).

2011The Supreme Court did not err in conducting the risk level assessment hearing after the defendant had moved back to New Jersey, as the dual purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA), which are to monitor sex offenders’ whereabouts and to aid law enforcement in prosecuting recidivist offenders, would be frustrated if they were to cease when a registered sex offender moves out of the state (see Matter of Doe v O’Donnell, 86 AD3d 238, 241-242 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 713 [2011]).

2010The 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 11, § 13), rather than to the 10-year registration requirement under the law that was in effect in 1999, is not properly before this Court, since he failed to raise this argument before the Supreme Court (see People v Ruben, 65 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2009], lv denied 17 NY3d 714 [2009]).

2005A sex offender facing risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C) (hereinafter SORA) has a due process right to “be given notice of the classification proceeding, sufficiently in advance of the hearing to afford the affected individual an opportunity to prepare to challenge and rebut the state’s contentions” (Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456, 471 [1998]; see People v Brooks, 308 AD2d 99, 103 [2003]).