Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Judy KNOX, Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level one sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art. 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant, who was convicted of attempted kidnapping in the second degree, was adjudicated a sex offender pursuant to Correction Law § 168-a(2)(a)(i), which includes within the category of “sex offenses” certain abduction-related crimes committed against children by persons other than their parents. Defendant now argues that this provision is facially unconstitutional because it requires persons convicted of certain nonsexual crimes to register as sex offenders. However, this challenge is unpreserved, in that counsel expressly disavowed any challenge to the statute on its face, asserting only a constitutional challenge to the statute as it was applied to defendant (see People v. Stuart, 100 N.Y.2d 412, 425-426, n. 11, 765 N.Y.S.2d 1, 797 N.E.2d 28 [2003] ). In any event, defendant's arguments are without merit. We agree with the Second Department that the statute is constitutional (People v. Taylor, 42 A.D.3d 13, 835 N.Y.S.2d 241 [2007]; see also People v. Cintron, 13 Misc.3d 833, 827 N.Y.S.2d 445 [Sup. Ct. Bronx County 2006] ). Furthermore, the statute is constitutional as applied to defendant (see People v. Cassano, 34 A.D.3d 239, 823 N.Y.S.2d 395 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 804, 830 N.Y.S.2d 700, 862 N.E.2d 792 [2007] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 01, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)