New York Law Review

People v. Liden, 18 N.Y.3d 272 (2011): Exception to Article 78 Exclusivity in Sex Offender Registration

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

People v. Liden, 18 N.Y.3d 272 (2011)

In New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) cases involving offenders from other states, a court determining an offender’s risk level may also review the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders’ initial determination that the offender is required to register, creating an exception to the general rule that challenges to administrative agency determinations must be brought via Article 78 proceedings.

Summary

Liden was convicted of unlawful imprisonment in Washington state. After moving to New York, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined he was required to register under SORA based on the Washington conviction. Liden did not file an Article 78 challenge to this determination. During the subsequent risk level determination, Liden argued he should not have been required to register. The Supreme Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that in these specific SORA cases, the risk level court can review the initial registrability determination due to efficiency and policy considerations, creating an exception to the usual Article 78 requirements.

Facts

  • Liden was charged in Washington with rape and kidnapping in 1996.
  • He pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful imprisonment.
  • He later moved to New York and was convicted of a non-sexual crime.
  • In 2007, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders determined that Liden was required to register under New York’s SORA because of his Washington conviction.
  • The Board recommended a risk level three designation.

Procedural History

  • The Supreme Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s initial determination of registrability, citing Appellate Division precedent requiring Article 78 proceedings for such challenges.
  • The Supreme Court adjudicated Liden a level three sex offender.
  • The Appellate Division affirmed.
  • The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether, in a SORA proceeding involving an offender who committed an offense in another state, the court determining the offender’s risk level can review the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders’ determination that the offender is required to register, despite the usual requirement that such determinations be challenged via an Article 78 proceeding.

Holding

Yes, because the structure of Correction Law § 168-k (2) and strong policy considerations support allowing the risk level court to review the registrability determination in these specific circumstances, creating a narrow exception to the exclusivity of Article 78 review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court acknowledged the general rule that challenges to administrative agency determinations must be brought via Article 78 proceedings. However, it found that the unique procedure for out-of-state sex offenders under Correction Law § 168-k (2) warranted an exception. The statute assigns the registrability determination to the Board and the risk level determination to the court. The Court reasoned that requiring separate proceedings—an Article 78 proceeding to challenge registrability and a risk level determination—is inefficient. The Court also emphasized practical concerns, noting that alleged sex offenders may be unrepresented when the Board makes its initial determination, and the statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding could expire before counsel is appointed for the risk level determination. The Court stated, “Where the initial determination that the person must register is disputed, plainly the most efficient course is for the risk level court to resolve the dispute; to have two separate courts examine essentially the same facts—one to decide registrability in an article 78 proceeding, and the other to decide risk level—serves no purpose.” The court further reasoned that barring the risk level court from considering registrability could put the court in the untenable position of assigning a risk level to someone it believes should not be registered at all. While recognizing the importance of orderly procedure in administrative law, the Court concluded that in this specific context, efficiency and fairness justified an exception to the Article 78 exclusivity rule.

More ARTICLES