| People v Reitano |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09446 [68 AD3d 954] |
| December 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnReitano, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H.Bruffee of counsel; George P. Sieniawski on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.),dated October 7, 2008, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuantto Correction Law article 6-C.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The only proper procedural vehicle for challenging a determination that an out-of-stateconviction subjects an offender to the registration requirements of the Sex Offender RegistrationAct (see Correction Law art 6-C) is a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Board ofExaminers of Sex Offenders (see People v Teagle, 64 AD3d 549, 550 [2009]; Peoplev Rendace, 58 AD3d 821 [2009]; People v Geier, 56 AD3d 539, 540 [2008];People v Carabello, 309 AD2d 1227, 1228 [2003]; Matter of Mandel, 293 AD2d750, 751 [2002]). Thus, on this appeal from the Supreme Court's order designating the appellanta level two sex offender, the appellant's contention that he should not have been required toregister as a sex offender in New York based on his conviction of sexual battery in California isnot properly before this Court (see People v Teagle, 64 AD3d at 550; People vCarabello, 309 AD2d at 1228).
Contrary to the appellant's contention, his attorney's failure to commence a CPLR article 78proceeding on his behalf did not deprive him of the effective assistance of counsel, since such aproceeding would have had "little or no chance of success" (People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Correction Law § 168-a[2] [b],[d] [i]; Penal Law § 130.55; Cal Penal Code § 243.4 [e] [1]; Matter ofNorth v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y., 8 NY3d 745 [2007]).
Inasmuch as the appellant does not raise any issue with respect to the Supreme Court's risklevel designation made in the order appealed from, the order must be affirmed. Prudenti, P.J.,Covello, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.