Battista Agronsky & Suchow, Staten Island (Carol Siegel of counsel), for defendant.
William L. Murphy, District Attorney of Richmond County (Santos Madahar of counsel), for plaintiff.
Arthur M. Schack, J.
Defendant is charged with violating Correction Law § 168-f (4)
(failure to report change of address as sex offender), part of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, commonly referred to as " Megan's Law," for failure as a sex offender to report an address change. The defendant pleaded guilty on December 16, 1996 to sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 ). He moves to dismiss the information alleging that it is facially insufficient pursuant to CPL 170.35 (1) (a); 100.40 (1) (a) and 100.15 (3). Defendant also moves in the alternative for a bill of particulars, discovery, to suppress statements and an identification, and a Sandoval/Molineaux ruling.
Defendant's motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency for an alleged Correction Law § 168-f (4) violation is apparently an issue of first impression. The issue before the court is whether a prima facie case for violation of Correction Law § 168-f (4) has been established when a defendant, who was convicted for violation of Penal Law § 130.65 (3) in Supreme Court, Richmond County, and assessed as a level II sex offender, failed to register within 10 calendar days his address change. This court finds that the People have failed to establish a prima facie case and therefore grant defendant's motion to dismiss.
The defendant was arrested on May 31, 2001, at about 7:45 A.M . inside Apartment No. 1B, 945 Post Avenue, Staten Island. The deponent in the misdemeanor complaint, Police Officer Maksimowich of the Staten Island Warrant Squad, states that based upon his own investigation:
" the defendant who was convicted of PL § 130.65 (3) in the Supreme Court in Richmond County and was thereafter assess [sic] to be a level II Sex Offender did fail to report his change of address to the Monitoring Unit as required, in that on October 10, 2001, the defendant did register 1631 Castleton Avenue as his residence but that said defendant did move to 945 Post Avenue Apt. #1b [sic] without reporting the move to the Monitoring Unit. Deponent further states that upon arrest, the defendant did state in sum and substance: After I ran from parole, I lived at 1637 Castleton Avenue but I now live at 945 Post Avenue.
" Deponent further states that the defendant is aware of the notification requirement because the defendant did sign the sex offender notice of registration form and said form requires the defendant
to register with the monitoring unit within ten days prior to any change of ...