| People v Costas |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10484 [46 AD3d 475] |
| December 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RuppiCostas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Nicole Beder of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Sussman, J.), entered on or about February14, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender under the Sex OffenderRegistration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
With the assistance of counsel, defendant executed a written waiver of his right to aredetermination hearing under Doe v Pataki (3 F Supp 2d 456 [SD NY 1998]). Onappeal, he asserts that the court should have conducted an allocution or inquiry prior to acceptingthe waiver. Since he did not raise any issue as to the voluntariness of his waiver, his claims inthis regard are unpreserved for appellate review (People v Gliatta, 27 AD3d 441 [2006]; People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403[2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]).
Even if we were to conclude that this claim presents a question of law that defendant mayraise for the first time on this civil appeal (see Chateau D' If Corp. v City of New York,219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]), we would find that thewaiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant was represented by counsel throughoutthe proceedings and was present as counsel advised the court of defendant's written waiver, andas the court proceeded to adjudicate him a level three sex offender in accordance with theoriginal determination, specifically reiterating that defendant had chosen not to challenge his risklevel. Further, the record establishes that defendant understood his rights when he checked the"no" box on the unambiguous hearing request form (see People v Smith, 6 NY3d 827, 828 [2006], cert denied548 US —, 126 S Ct 2971 [2006] [valid written jury trial waiver]). We find noauthority for a requirement of a personal allocution (see People v Dexter, 21 AD3d at404), and we reject defendant's contention that a waiver of a sex offender hearing should requiresimilar procedures to those required for a waiver of the right to appeal a criminal case.Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.