MICHAEL DEVINE, res, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ETC. ap

MATTER OF MICHAEL DEVINE, res, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ETC. ap — (INDEX NO. 5406/14)In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the enforcement of Executive Law §259-c(14) against the petitioner/plaintiff, and action for a judgment declaring that Executive Law §259-c(14) is unconstitutional, Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Mary Osborne, Deputy Director, Sex Offender Monitoring, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated September 29, 2014, as granted that branch of the petition/complaint which was to prohibit them from enforcing Executive Law §259-c(14) against the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that Executive Law §259-c(14) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art I, §10[1]) as applied to the petitioner/plaintiff.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MATTER OF MICHAEL DEVINE, res, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ETC. ap — (INDEX NO. 5406/14)In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the enforcement of Executive Law §259-c(14) against the petitioner/plaintiff, and action for a judgment declaring that Executive Law §259-c(14) is unconstitutional, Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, and Mary Osborne, Deputy Director, Sex Offender Monitoring, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated September 29, 2014, as granted that branch of the petition/complaint which was to prohibit them from enforcing Executive Law §259-c(14) against the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that Executive Law §259-c(14) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art I, §10[1]) as applied to the petitioner/plaintiff.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of the petition/complaint which was pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the appellants from enforcing Executive Law §259-c(14) against the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that Executive Law §259-c(14) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to the petitioner/plaintiff is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the remaining requests for relief in the petition/complaint.

MICHAEL DEVINE, res, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ETC. ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal