People v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 14 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2014–07976 |
| Citation | 158 A.D.3d 730,68 N.Y.S.3d 745 (Mem) |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent, v. Dane HUNT, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
158 A.D.3d 730
68 N.Y.S.3d 745 (Mem)
PEOPLE of State of New York, respondent,
v.
Dane HUNT, appellant.
2014–07976
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Submitted—November 6, 2017
February 14, 2018
James D. Licata, New City, N.Y. (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger and Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Charles Apotheker, J.), entered August 5, 2014, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for a new hearing and a new determination thereafter in accordance herewith.
After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6–C; hereinafter SORA), at which the defendant was not present, the County Court designated the defendant a level two sex offender.
"A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing" ( People v. Gonzalez, 69 A.D.3d 819, 819, 892 N.Y.S.2d 774 ; see People v. Parris, 153 A.D.3d 68, 76 ; People v. Porter, 37 A.D.3d 797, 832 N.Y.S.2d 53 ). While a defendant may waive the right to be present at the hearing, in order to establish a valid waiver it must be shown, inter alia, that "the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of his right to be present, and that the hearing would be conducted in his absence" ( People v. Brooks, 308 A.D.2d 99, 106, 763 N.Y.S.2d 86 ; see People v. Jenkins, 151 A.D.3d 891, 892, 56 N.Y.S.3d 532 ; People v. Ginyard, 101 A.D.3d 1095, 958 N.Y.S.2d 154 ; People v. Jackson, 94...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valente v. Dave & Buster's of N.Y., Inc.
...& Buster's of New York, Inc., Dave & Buster's, Inc., and Dave & Buster's Management Corporation, Inc., which was for summary judgment 68 N.Y.S.3d 745dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.158 A.D.3d 732ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with cost......
- People v. Scott