People v. Liden, 19 N.Y.3d 271

Defendant Scott Liden pleaded guilty in Washington in 1996 to two counts of unlawful imprisonment (rape/kidnapping related).
He later moved to New York and was convicted of a nonsexual New York offense, bringing his record to the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board).
The Board determined in 2007 that, due to the Washington conviction, Liden must register under SORA.
The Board then recommended a level of notification (risk level) to be set by a New York court; the Board recommended level three (high risk).
Liden argued he should not have to register at all because unlawful imprisonment in the second degree is a misdemeanor under NY law and was not a “sex offense” under the pre-2002 rules; the 2002 amendment to the definitional standard for foreign offenses is at issue.
Supreme Court held it did not have jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination; Appellate Division affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted review and reversed, annulling the Board’s registrability finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the registrability determination is reviewable in the risk level proceeding.	Liden argues Board erred in requiring registration; review should be in article 78.	People contend jurisdiction lies in article 78 proceedings.	Yes; exception to article 78 review applies; registrability can be reviewed in risk level proceeding.
Whether the Board’s registrability determination was correct given the 2002 definitional amendment for foreign offenses.	Washington unlawful imprisonment (misdemeanor NY) should not trigger registration under SORA after 2002 amendment.	(Board) The registration determination should be reviewed for registrability; amendment affects interpretation.	Board’s registrability determination annulled; defendant not required to register.
Whether the risk level court may decide registrability to avoid duplicative proceedings.	Efficient to have risk level court address registrability.	Traditionally, registrability reviewed in article 78 separate from risk level.	Court approved allowing risk level proceeding to resolve registrability to promote efficiency and avoid duplicative litigation.

Matter of Mandel, 293 A.D.2d 750 (2d Dept 2002) (traditional article 78 review limitations; registrability subject to review)
People v Carabello, 309 A.D.2d 1227 (4th Dept 2003) (registrability determinations reviewed in article 78; doctrinal precedent)
People v Williams, 24 A.D.3d 894 (3d Dept 2005) (limits on review of registrability determinations; article 78 path)
People v Liden, 79 A.D.3d 598 (1st Dept 2010) (Appellate Division decision on review pathway for registrability)