EFTA01177413

At defendant's instruction, the recruiter left the room and the new girl finished the 
massage alone (A18). 
The girl was given 
$200 for the massage, and the recruiter girl was given $200 for having brought the girl 
to defendant (A18). 
subsequently called and asked the girl to return for some 
additional "work," as 
called it; the girl said she was not comfortable providing 
"that type of work" (A18). 
During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a Royal Palm Beach 
High School student whose birthdate was 
reported having been 
approached by 
to provide a massage for defendant in exchange for $200 in 
cash (A19). 
made the arrangements but was unable to take the girl, so 
someone else drove the girl there (A19). Entering the house through the kitchen 
door, the girl met with 
as well as another "assistant," 
(A19). As 
escorted her upstairs, the girl noticed a number of photographs of naked girls 
throughout the house (A19). 
-17-
EFTA01177433

On two occasions, the girl brought a classmate to defendant's 
ome to per orm a massage, and the girl received $200 for each one she brought 
(A20). 
In a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a girl whose birthdate was 
elated having been approached by 
and asked about making money 
for providing massages to defendant (A20). The girl agreed, and 
drove her to 
defendant's home, where they were met by defendant and 
(A20). 
took 
the girl upstairs and then left the room (A20). Defendant entered wearing only a 
towel, and lay on his stomach as the girl, wearing only panties, rubbed his back (A20). 
Defendant masturbated until he ejaculated (A20). The girl "felt the whole situation 
was weird"; but she was paid $200, so she returned (A20). 
was paid $200 for 
having brought the girl to defendant's house (A20). 
-18-
EFTA01177434

During subsequent massages, defendant grabbed the girl's breasts and fondled 
them (A20). On one occasion, when she was 17 years of age, defendant paid her 
extra to have vaginal intercourse, and she agreed (A20). As the girl lay on the massage 
table, defendant penetrated her vagina with his penis, withdrawing to ejaculate onto 
the table (A20). Defendant gave the girl $350 for that massage (A20). On a different 
occasion, defendant had his girlfriend 
and the girl kiss and fondle each 
other's breasts and buttocks as he watched and masturbated (A20). On yet other 
occasions, defendant used a large, white vibrator on the girl's vagina as she massaged 
him (A20). Defendant masturbated during every massage (A20). 
During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a Royal Palm Beach 
High School student whose birthdate was 
related that, at 17 years of age, she 
went with 
to defendant's house (A10-11). Entering the house through the 
kitchen, the girl was escorted upstairs by 
(A10-11). Defendant entered the 
bedroom wearing only a towel, but she remain clothed (A11). At one point during 
the massage, defendant grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him (All). The 
girl received money but did not remember how much (A11). She was "uncomfortable 
with the whole experience" and did not return (A11). 
During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a Royal Palm Beach 
student whose birthdate was 
'elated that she was 16 years of age when she 
went to defendant's house for the first time at the suggestion of a classmate (A20-21). 
escorted the girl upstairs to a bedroom, and defendant lay naked on a massage 
-19-
EFTA01177435

table as he handed her some oils (A21). Fully clothed, the girl rubbed defendant's legs 
and back (A21). Defendant paid her $300 for the massage (A21). Subsequently, 
called the girl and said that defendant was "in town" and wanted her to 
"work" (A21). The girl went to defendant's house and provided a massage, again 
while fully-clothed (A21). 
The following time, defendant asked the girl to remove 
her clothes, and she complied (A21). Wearing only thong panties, the girl continued 
the massage as defendant turned on his back and masturbated while she rubbed his 
chest (A21). Once he had climaxed, defendant got up and told her to get dressed 
(A21). The girl received $300 that day (A21). 
By the time= 
called and asked her to work again, in about January of 
2005, the girl had a boyfriend and did not feel comfortable about going, but she 
decided to go one last time (A21). Defendant entered the bedroom wearing only a 
towel and lay down on the massage table (A21). During the massage, defendant 
caught the girl looking at the clock a few times, and he asked if she was "in a hurry" 
(A21). When the girl said that her boyfriend was waiting for her outside, and that she 
would not be back again, defendant told her to leave because she was ruining his 
massage (A21). 
Even after that falling out, defendant still wired her money by 
Western Union as a "Christmas bonus" (A21). 
During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a girl whose date of 
birth was_reported 
having provided massages to defendant for two years, 
beginning when she was 16 years of age (A14). Over the course of that time, 
-20-
EFTA01177436

defendant "kept pushing to go further and further" (A14). "Recently" she had begun 
removing her clothes and providing the massage dressed only in a thong panty, and he 
had begun to masturbate as she rubbed his chest (A14-15). Defendant rubbed her 
buttocks, but she pulled back when he tried to touch her breasts (A15). She also 
refused to let defendant use a "large white" vibrator, with a "huge head on the tip," 
on her; defendant kept the vibrator in a closet near the massage table (A14-15). 
Defendant "tr[ied] to get away with more and more on each massage," and she 
considered him to be a "pervert" (A14-15). 
The most recent massage had been on October 1, 2005 (A15). On that date, 
the girl asked to borrow one of defendant's cars, and he said he would rent a car for 
her (A15). Two days later, on October 3rd, 
called and said that defendant had 
rented a new Nissan Sentra for her, and that the car would be hers for a month (A15). 
The girl related that, at the time of the interview, the car was parked next to the I xnn 
University Gym field (A15). 
In a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a Royal Palm Beach High 
School student whose birthdate wa
reported having been approached by 
a classmate who asked if the girl wanted to "work" (A17). As the girl explained it, 
arrangements were made with defendant's "assistant," 
and then the girl went 
to defendant's home in March of 2005 and gave him a massage, fully-clothed, in 
exchange for $200 (A17). Since the girl's answers seemed "almost scripted," and she 
appeared to be "nervous," the detective asked if she had been contacted by anyone 
-21-
EFTA01177437

from defendant's "organizations" or "house" (A17). The girl said she had been 
"interviewed" by a "private investigator" named "Paul," who had been hired by 
defendant (A17). The investigator had asked her about the police investigation, and 
he had given her his telephone number, which she related to the detectives (A17). 
The Evidence Corroborating The "Massage" Statements 
The probable-cause affidavit also outlined a variety of other evidence 
uncovered during the investigation, including the following 
gave a statement that was sworn and taped-recorded (A8-10). 
said that she was 17 years of age when she was approached by a friend about 
providing a massage for defendant in exchange for $200 (A8). 
friend drove 
her to defendant's home, where defendant and 
greeted her in the kitchen, and 
theft= 
ledn 
the upstairs bedroom, arranged the massage table and oils, 
and left the room (A9). Defendant entered the room wearing only a towel, lay face-
down on the table nude, and selected an oil for her to use (A9). 
was naked 
while performing the massage, and defendant grabbed 
buttocks; 
"felt uncomfortable" and said that she did not want to be "touched" (A9). 
Defendant paid 
$200 for the massage (A9). Defendant offered to pay 
for simply bringing girls to him—"the younger the better," defendant said 
(A9). One time, 
brought a 23-year-old, and defendant said she was "too old" 
(A9). 
remembered having brought six different girls to defendant, including 
-22-
EFTA01177438

all between the ages of 14 and 16 (A9). 
was the youngest—
she was 14 years of age at the time of the massage (A9). Defendant did not contact 
directly to make arrangements; defendant informed 
that he was going 
to travel to Palm Beach, and 
contacted 
who in turn arranged for girls 
to "work" for defendant during that time period (A9-10). 
called for ■ 
at home and drove her to defendant's house; 
was driving a red pick-up truck at that time (A9). Entering through the kitchen door, 
and ■ 
met with defendant's house chef and = 
after which 
escorted 
to the upstairs bedroom (A9). ■said she had been paid $300 for the 
massage, and 
received $200 for having brought 
there (A9). 
was the 
last girl 
took to defendant, because 
parents found out about her 
"visits" to defendant and she stopped (A10). 
changed her cellular number in 
order to avoid =, 
but 
continued to call 
house and leave 
messages for her there (A9-10). 
gave the police cellular numbers and possible addresses for the girls 
whom she had mentioned (A10). Once the interview had concluded, a sergeant 
informed 
that, by admitting that she had taken underage girls to defendant's 
house, she had implicated herself in a crime (A10). During the ride home, 
told the police, "I'm like a Heidi Fleiss" (A10). That statement was recorded by a 
device in the car (A10). 
-23-
EFTA01177439

During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, a Royal Palm Beach 
High School student whose birthdate was 
reported that 
approached girls at school and asked if they wanted to "work" for defendant by giving 
him massages (A19). The girl declined to provide any massages herself, but she went 
along on four or five occasions when 
took other girls, including ■, 
to 
defendant's home (A19). The girl waited in the kitchen with 
during the 
massage, and defendant's cook provided food for them (A19). 
was given 
$200 for each girl she delivered (A19). The girl noticed that there were many 
photographs of naked girls in the house (A19). 
During an interview, Jose Alessi stated that, from about 1993 through 2004, 
he had been employed by defendant as house manager, driver, and maintenance 
person at the Palm Beach house (A26). Defendant's cooks and assistants travelled 
with him on his private plane (A26). Defendant received three massages each day in 
the house (A26). Each masseuse was different, and toward the end of Alessi's period 
of employment, the masseuses were "younger and younger"—sixteen or seventeen 
years of age "at the most" (A26). The massages took place in defendant's bedroom; 
Alessi set up the massage table there (A26). There were times toward the end of 
Alessi's employment that he found a vibrator and long rubber penis in the sink after 
the massage; Alessi had to wash off those items (A26). "[A]lmost always" after a 
massage Alessi had to make defendant's bed (A26). 
-24-
EFTA01177440

During a statement that was sworn and tape-recorded, Alfredo Rodriguez 
related that, from November 2004 through May of 2005, he had been employed by 
defendant as "house manager" of the Palm Beach home (A26). In this capacity, 
Rodriguez acted as butler, chauffeur, chef, and houseman; he also ran errands for 
defendant, and provided for defendant's guests (A26). 
During the time defendant 
was "in residence," he had two massages a day—one in the morning, and one in the 
afternoon (A26). 
Rodriguez was told to expect someone and to make them 
comfortable until either defendant or_i 
arrived; Rodriguez admitted the girls into 
the kitchen, where either defendant or 
met them and escorted them upstairs 
(A26). 
The girls appeared to be too young to be masseuses; Rodriguez knew that the 
girls were still in high school and were of high school age (A26). On one occasion, at 
defendant's direction, Rodriguez delivered a dozen roses to Royal Palm Beach High 
School for one of the girls who had come to the house to provide a massage (A26). 
On another occasion, also at defendant's direction, Rodriguez rented a car from 
Dollar Rent-A-Car and delivered it to the same girl—so she could drive to 
defendant's home without incident, whereas otherwise she often needed rides to and 
from the house (A27). 
Rodriguez produced a folder containing documentation: there was a note on 
defendant's stationery directing the delivery of roses to Royal Palm Beach High 
School after 
school play, and on the same stationery a direction to rent a car 
-25-
EFTA01177441

for 
and to extend the contract (A27). Rodriguez believed that there was "a lot 
more going on than just massages" (A26). Rodriguez often cleaned defendant's 
bedroom after the massages, and found vibrators and "sex toys" scattered on the 
floor; he "wiped down" those items and put them away in an armoire near 
defendant's bed (A26-27). 
While executing a search warrant at defendant's home, the case detective saw a 
pink-and-green couch in the master bedroom, photographs of naked young girls 
lining a wall of the stairway leading from the kitchen to the bedroom, and numerous 
photographs of naked young girls throughout the houses; some of the subjects of the 
photographs seemed to be girls whom the detective had interviewed (A23). Inside a 
bedroom desk containing stationery in defendant's name, the detective found a high 
school transcript for.. 
(A23). In an armoire next to the bed, the detective found 
a bottle of massage oil (A23). There was a massage table in the master bedroom, and 
other tables throughout that floor of the house (A23). 
On the first floor, the detective found two covert cameras hidden within 
clocks—one in the garage, and the other on a shelf behind a desk (A23). A computer 
found in the house appeared to display images from the two covert cameras, and the 
hard drive of that computer contained several images of 
and other girls 
whom the police had interviewed (A23). Telephone message books recovered from 
the house contained carbon copies of various messages, some of which listed the 
names and telephone numbers of girls whom the detective recognized from the 
-26-
EFTA01177442

investigation (A23). In the text of some of those messages, there were notations 
indicating that the caller was confirming a "work" appointment (A23). Other 
messages listed the caller's message as, "I have girls for him," and, "I have 2 girls for 
him"; 
name appeared at the bottom of those messages, in the space provided 
for the name of the person who had taken the message (A23). 
Subpoenaed cellular telephone records showed that 
had called 
"during the exact times and dates" of the incidents that 
had described, and that 
also had called 
and 
"during the time frame" of the incidents related 
by those girls (A27). 
A comparison of data from subpoenaed aviation records 
indicating arrival and departure times for defendant's private plane at Palm Beach 
International Airport, and subpoenaed cellular telephone records showed that 
had made telephone calls to 
and the victims either "in the days just prior to" 
defendant's arrival in Palm Beach, or during the time he was already there (A27). 
After the interview of the girl whose birthdate was 
detectives found 
a silver Nissan Sentra parked near the gym of Lynn University—the car was registered 
to Dollar Rent-A-Car; had been rented by Janusz Banasiack, who was employed as 
defendant's houseman at the time; and had been charged to a credit card in 
defendant's name (A15). 
Subpoenaed records of Western Union revealed that, on 
December 23, 2004, defendant had sent money to the girl with birthdate 
(A21). 
-27-
EFTA01177443

M father told police that 
February 6, 2005, and that 
had come to their home to get 
on 
was driving a pick-up truck at the time (AD. 
During a controlled, tape-recorded telephone call to 
cellular telephone,■ 
asked what she "need[ed] to do to make more money," and 
replied, "The 
more you do, the more you get paid" (A8). 
subsequently caller 
cellular 
telephone and left a voicemail message indicating that she had set up an appointment 
for-to 
go to defendant's house at 11:00 a.m. on April 5, 2005; the police recorded 
that message from 
voicemail (A8). A trash pull from defendant's house on 
April 5, 2005, revealed a telephone message for defendant which listed the names of 
and 
and the time 11:00 a.m. (A8). 
During the course of the investigation, detectives learned that several people 
whom the police had identified as possible victims were in fact 18 years of age or 
older, and therefore were consenting adults (A25). During interviews, these adults 
described what the police found to be "the same massage routine" as the one 
portrayed by the victims: 
contacted them and set up appointments for them to 
"work"; they entered defendant's house through the kitchen, and 
escorted 
them to an upstairs bedroom; defendant entered the room wearing only a towel and 
asked them to get comfortable; as they performed the massage naked, defendant 
either touched their vaginas with his fingers or rubbed their vaginal areas with a 
vibrator; defendant masturbated to climax, and at that point the massage ended (A25-
26). 
-28-
EFTA01177444

The Recommendations Of The Board 
Pursuant to the mandate of Corrections Law Section 168-1, the Board issued a 
"Case Summary" and a completed "Risk Assessment Instrument" with respect to 
defendant. These documents were based upon the Florida probable-cause affidavit, 
as well as defendant's "inmate file," which included defendant's pre-sentence report, 
prior criminal history, and post-offense behavior (A65). 
The Case Summary 
The Case Summary included a detailed account of the operation that defendant 
had established and maintained for the purpose of satisfying his obsessive sexual 
desire for young girls. The Summary stated that, during 2005, defendant had sexually 
assaulted "numerous" girls between the approximate ages of 14 and 17 (A65). 
"Most" of the victims had been "recruited" from a local high school by a 17-year-old 
who herself had begun as one of defendant's massage victims (A65). 
The Summary noted police reports containing references to police 
conversations with "numerous" girls (A65). According to the police reports, "most" 
of the girls were "embarrassed to speak with police regarding what had happened to 
them while they were in [defendant]'s home" (A65). 
Nonetheless, "[s]worn 
statements" had been taken from "at least five victims and seventeen witnesses" 
about "massages and unlawful sexual activity" that had taken place at defendant's 
home (A65). 
-29-
EFTA01177445

The Summary recounted how, one after another, school girls had been lured to 
defendant's home with the promise of money in exchange for performing a 
"massage" (A65). Once the girl had been led through his home and to his bedroom, 
past photo displays of naked young girls, defendant entered the bedroom wearing 
only a towel and lay down on a massage table that had been set up there (A65). On 
most occasions, defendant immediately removed the towel and asked the girl to 
remove her clothing as well (A65). Most girls undressed down to their bra and 
panties, and some removed even those items (A65). During the massage, defendant 
either touched the girl's breasts, inserted his fingers into her vagina, or used a vibrator 
on the girl's vaginal area—sometimes doing a combination of those things (A65). 
Defendant masturbated to climax during the encounter, often ejaculating into the 
towel that he had been wearing (A65). The girls were paid a minimum of $200 at the 
end of each encounter (A65). 
Pointing to a number of victims as examples, the Summary stated that, with a 
14-year-old, for example, defendant had touched the girl's vaginal area with a vibrator 
while she performed the massage (A65). Yet a different girl, 16 years of age, had gone 
to defendant's home at least 100 times over the course of a two-year period (A65). 
When receiving a massage from this girl, defendant had masturbated while either 
touching the young girl's breasts, inserting his fingers into her vagina, or using a 
vibrator on her vaginal area (A65). On some occasions, defendant paid this young girl 
to engage in sexual activity with an adult female friend of his while he watched; 
-30-
EFTA01177446

defendant sometimes participated by performing oral sex on the young girl (A65). On 
one occasion, the encounter escalated to the point where defendant forcibly raped the 
girl—turning the teenager over on the massage table and, against her will, forcibly 
inserting his penis into her vagina (A65). 
The Summary stated that defendant's conduct while on Community Control 
had been assessed as "satisfactory"; that he lacked a history of substance abuse; and 
that, because defendant had pleaded guilty, he was being "credited" with having 
accepted responsibility for his actions (A65). Regarding defendant's criminal history, 
the Case Summary stated that, in 1973, in England, defendant had been convicted of 
the misdemeanor Unlawful Possession of an Offensive Weapon—namely, a cane that 
incorporated a concealed blade (A65). Defendant had been assessed for: "sexual and 
deviate intercourse, forcible compulsion, numerous victims and their ages, a 
continued course of sexual misconduct, a prior misdemeanor conviction in England 
absent specific information, his stranger relationship to most victims, and establishing 
a relationship with these underage girls for the purpose of victimization" (A65). 
The Board calculated that defendant "score[d] as a Level III Sex Offender with 
absolutely no basis for downward departure" (A66). As the Board assessed the 
circumstances, defendant had "used his wealth and power in such a way so that he 
could take advantage of many teenage girls to satisfy his own sexual perversions" 
(A65-66). 
-31-
EFTA01177447

The Risk Assessment Instrument 
Of the fifteen factors included in the Risk Assessment Instrument, the Board 
recommended that defendant receive points for seven of them, as follows: for the 
"Use of Violence" factor, 10 points, based on the fact that defendant had used 
forcible compulsion; for the "Sexual Contact with Victim" factor, 25 points, based on 
the fact that defendant had committed either sexual intercourse, oral or anal sexual 
conduct, or aggravated sexual abuse; for the "Number of Victims" factor, 30 points, 
based on the fact that there were three or more victims; for the "Duration of Offense 
Conduct with Victim" factor, 20 points, based on the fact that defendant had 
committed a continuing course of sexual misconduct; for the "Age of Victim" factor, 
20 points, based on the fact that there was a victim between the ages of 11 and 16 
years; for the "Relationship with Victim" factor, 20 points, based on the fact that a 
victim either was a stranger, someone with whom defendant had established a 
relationship for the purpose of victimizing, or someone with whom he had a 
professional relationship; and, for the "Number and Nature of Prior Crimes" factor, 5 
points, since the Board concluded that defendant had no prior history of sex crimes 
or felonies. By the Board's calculations, defendant had a total risk assessment score 
of 130 points (A64). 
-32-
EFTA01177448

POINT 
THE 
SORA 
COURT'S 
DESIGNATION 
OF 
DEFENDANT AS A LEVEL-THREE OFFENDER 
WAS SUPPORTED OVERWHELMINGLY BY THE 
RECORD. THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE COURT 
REACHED 
AND 
DELIVERED 
THAT 
DETERMINATION WAS ENTIRELY FAIR AND 
PROPER (Answering Defendant's Brief). 
As noted, the Board assessed defendant's risk level according to the various 
factors set out in the Risk Assessment Instrument, and they calculated defendant's 
score at 130, making him a presumptive level-three offender. The Board also 
considered all of the facts and circumstances to see if there was any legitimate basis 
for a downward departure, and they concluded that there was none. For those 
reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex 
offender. 
At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the 
position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with 
which he had actually been charged. Minimizing the seriousness of the crimes and 
claiming he was present in New York only for limited periods of time, defendant 
urged additionally that strict level-three reporting requirements would be unfair in this 
particular case. The People, in turn, voiced their own concerns about assessing points 
for criminal conduct beyond that for which defendant had been charged; in reaching 
that conclusion, the People apparently relied on a combination of a mistaken 
interpretation of the governing legal standards and certain secondhand information 
-33-
EFTA01177449

about the Florida case. After a full SORA hearing, including an extended inquiry 
revealing the unreliable nature of the prosecutor's information, Justice Pickholz 
adopted the recommendation made by the SORA. Board and designated defendant a 
level-three offender. 
On appeal, defendant claims that the SORA court erred in a number of ways. 
Defendant contends that the level-three finding was not supported by the record and 
instead was attributable to the court's "personal disdain" for defendant. Defendant 
further complains that the court denied the parties an opportunity to present evidence 
on disputed issues. In addition, defendant argues that the SORA order itself lacked 
the requisite findings and conclusions. 
First, defendant's appellate complaints are almost entirely unpreserved. During 
the proceedings below, defendant mentioned only one of his current complaints—
namely, the one about the purported lack of record support. Furthermore, none of 
defendant's current complaints has even a shred of merit. Thus, there is no reason to 
disturb the decision of the SORA court. 
A. 
As the Sex Offender Registration Act itself explains, "the threat posed by a sex 
offender depends upon two factors: (i) the offender's likelihood of reoffense, and (ii) 
the harm that would be inflicted if he did reoffend." Sex Offender Guidelines and 
Commentary ("Guidelines") at 2. "[I]n determining an offender's risk level," the 
-34-
EFTA01177450

Guidelines "seek to capture both these elements." Id. The Guidelines recognize that 
certain conduct, in particular, carries a strong likelihood of re-offense. "Offenders 
who target young children as their victims are more likely to reoffend," the Guidelines 
state. Guidelines at 11 (internal citations omitted). "Such offenders also pose a 
heightened risk to public safety," the Guidelines add, because young children both 
"lack the physical strength to resist" and "can be more easily lured into dangerous 
situations than adults." Id. 
For those reasons, the Guidelines provide a special 
category for an offender whose victims are between the ages of 11 through 16. 
Likewise, the Guidelines explain that "[t]he existence of multiple victims is indicative 
of compulsive behavior and is, therefore, a significant factor in assessing the 
offender's risk of re-offense and dangerousness." Guidelines at 10 (internal citations 
omitted). 
In an effort to predict the likelihood of re-offense and the extent of the harm 
inflicted as a result, a Risk Assessment Instrument assigns points to an offender for an 
extended series of risk factors—including those just mentioned—and the offender's 
total score using that calculation becomes his "presumptive risk level." Guidelines at 
3. 
Although a court is empowered to exercise its discretion and depart from the 
presumptive risk level, "[t]he expectation is that the [risk assessment] instrument will 
result in the proper classification in most cases, so that departures will be the 
exception -- not the rule." Commentary at 4; is  also People v. Guaman, 8 A.D.3d 
545 (2d Dept. 2004)(citation omitted). A SORA court may adopt the presumptive 
-35-
EFTA01177451

risk level as long as the court finds that the risk factors giving rise to the offender's 
score were supported by "clear and convincing evidence." agg Correction Law §168-
n(3); People v. Pettigrew, 14 N.Y.3d 406, 408 (2010); People v. O'Neal, 35 A.D.3d 
302 (1st Dept 2006). 
That SORA employs this relatively-relaxed standard, as opposed to proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt, reflects the fact that a SORA risk-level assessment is 
made not for the purpose of punishing the offender but rather for the sole purpose of 
protecting the public from the risk the offender poses. au People v. Knox, 12 
N.Y.3d 60 (2009)("governmental interest advanced by SORA is, of course, the 
protection of the community against people who have shown themselves capable of 
committing sex crimes"); People v. Windham 10 N.Y.3d 801, 802 (2008)(SORA risk-
level determination "is a collateral consequence of a conviction for a sex offense 
designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public"). 
In determining whether a risk factor has been supported by "clear and 
convincing evidence," the SORA court may consider information from my source 
that is "reliable." Correction Law §168-n(3); Guidelines at 7. 
Plainly, that includes 
hearsay. Correction Law §169-8(3)(SORA court "may consider reliable hearsay 
evidence submitted by either party"); Les also People v. Conway, 47 A.D.3d 492, 492-
493 (1st Dept. 2008); People v. Mendez, 45 A.D.3d 429 (1st Dept. 2007). Indeed, 
case summaries prepared by the SORA Board and submitted to court "certainly meet 
the `reliable hearsay' standard for admissibility at SORA proceedings," People v. 
-36-
EFTA01177452