People v Rendace
2009 NY Slip Op 00517 [58 AD3d 821]
January 27, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 11, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
William Rendace, Appellant.

[*1]Samuel E. Rieff, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Margaret E. Mainusch and Cristin N.Connell of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.),entered January 30, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level one sex offenderpursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

After the defendant, a resident of New York, was convicted of an offense in New Jersey, theNew York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (hereinafter the Board) determined,pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law § 168 etseq.), that he was a sex offender and was required to register (see Correction Law§ 168-k [2]). A proceeding was commenced in the Supreme Court to determine thedefendant's risk level, during which the defendant asserted that the Board erred in determiningthat he was a sex offender. He declined, however, to raise this contention by bringing aproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against the Board. A proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78 is the only proper vehicle by which to raise a challenge to the Board's determinationunder Correction Law § 168-k (2) that a person convicted of an offense out of New YorkState is required to register as a sex offender (see People v Geier, 56 AD3d 539 [2008]; People v Pride, 37 AD3d 957, 958[2007]; People v Stafford, 32 AD3d1133, 1134 [2006]; Matter ofChuruti v Devane, 29 AD3d 1139, 1142 [2006]; People v Williams, 24 AD3d 894, 895 [2005]; People vCarabello, 309 AD2d 1227, 1228 [2003]; cf. Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State ofN.Y., 8 NY3d 745 [2007]).[*2]

Inasmuch as the defendant does not raise any issue withrespect to the Supreme Court's risk level designation made in the order entered January 30, 2007,the order appealed from must be affirmed. Fisher, J.P., Florio, Carni and Chambers, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.