People v Herman

Annotate this Case
People v Herman 2013 NY Slip Op 00227 Decided on January 16, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 16, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
SANDRA L. SGROI
SYLVIA HINDS-RADIX, JJ.
2011-03888
(Ind. No. 292-11)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jeffrey Herman, appellant.




Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Anne E.
Oh of counsel; Tara Laterza on the
brief), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn J.), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of failure to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168-f[4]; § 168-t), and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he did not violate the requirement that he timely notify the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services about his change of address because he was allegedly homeless is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, the contention is without merit (see Correction Law § 168-f[4]; United States v Van Buren, 599 F3d 170 [2d Cir], cert denied _____ US _____, 131 S Ct 483; People v Dowdy, 489 Misc 373, 802 NW2d 239; see also People v Alemany, 13 NY3d 424; People v DeDona, _____ AD3d _____, 2012 NY Slip Op 07647 [2d Dept 2012]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under either the United States or New York constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397.)
ENG, P.J., ANGIOLILLO, SGROI and HINDS-RADIX, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.