Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Matter of Green v. Laclair

Posted on 2020-08-272020-08-28

The question in this case is whether the statutory provision barring sex offenders from entering onto or living near school grounds applies to someone who has been adjudicated a Level III sex offender but whose predicate offense is not a qualifying offense. The same issue is raised by People ex rel. Negron v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility.

In general, the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) groups sex offenders into three categories—Levels I, II or III—and imposes registration requirements depending on a sex offender’s category. An offender’s SORA level adjudication can also have implications outside the SORA registration context. For instance, it might trigger Executive Law § 259-c(14), which provides that certain sex offenders who are granted parole must be prohibited from going onto or living near school grounds.

This case turns on the interpretation of Executive Law § 259-c(14). That provision states that, “where a person serving a sentence for [a qualifying offense] and the victim of such offense was under the age of eighteen at the time of such offense or such person has been designated a [SORA] level three sex offender,” the school-grounds restriction applies.

Defendant was adjudicated a Level III sex offender based on a 1989 conviction for rape. Then, in 2007, he was convicted of burglary and robbery charges and given a sentence of 13 years prison, followed by five years post-release supervision. Upon his release, the State Board of Parole concluded that Executive Law § 259-c(14) applied and refused to release defendant because he could not find housing that was not too close to a school.

Petitioner brought this habeas corpus proceeding to challenge his continued retention. Supreme Court denied defendant’s habeas petition, and the Third Department reversed. Citing its earlier decision in People ex rel. Negron v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility, the court held that Executive Law § 259-c(14) did not apply to defendant and thus granted his petition for release.

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

By Phil on 2020-08-27.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com