The Awareness Center, Inc. (International Jewish Coaltion Against Sexual Assault): Case of Yoel Oberlander

Case of Yoel Oberlander

Monsey, NY
Truck Driver, Golden State Foods - Spring Valley NY

Camp Shalva - South Fallsburg, NY

Convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl back on Nov. 27, 2002.

August 8, 2012, Oberlander was accused of molesting boys at a camp in which he was delivering kosher milk. He was caught on camera entering bunks for seventh-and eighth-graders at the camp early in the morning.

There are other people who go by the name Yoel Oberlander. The individual discussed on this page was born on August 29, 1980.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Inclusion in this website does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement. Individuals must decide for themselves whether the resources meet their own personal needs.

Table of Contents:

2002

Originally convicted of molesting an eleven-year-old girl (11/27/2002)

2003

People v. Yoel Oberlander - Despite 'Chemical Castration' Court Requires Defendant's Registration as Level 2 Sex Offender. (06/24/2003)

2005

Sex offender notification (04/21/2005)

2007

2 Monsey sex offenders accused of violating new residence law (08/11/2007)

2008

Sex offender challenges constitutionality of Rockland residency law (10/28/2008)

2009

The People of The State of New York against Yoel Oberlander (01/2009)

2011

Two Monsey sex offenders live at new addresses (05/12/2011)

2012

Sex Offender Registration and Notification in the United States (07/01/2012)
Registered sex offender sneaks into Catskills sleep-away camp 08/16/2012)
Monsey sex offender Yoel Oberlander slips into boys' dorm, cops say (08/17/2012)
Sex offender busted after sneaking in where orthodox Jewish kids were sleeping at camp (08/17/2012)

2014

New York State Sex Offender Registry (01/30/2014)

_________________________________________________________________________________

People v. Yoel Oberlander - Despite 'Chemical Castration' Court Requires Defendant's Registration as Level 2 Sex Offender.

New York Law Journal - June 24, 2003

ROCKLAND
Criminal Practice
Judge Kelly
County Court

A SEX OFFENDER classification hearing was held for defendant, who had been sentenced to probation after conviction for second degree sexual abuse. He was a presumed Level 2 sex offender based on an 85 point score on a riskassessment instrument. Defendant, "chemically castrated" by medical treatments reducing his blood testosterone level, argued that the instrument was erroneous because he did not employ "forcible compulsion." The court, however, required defendant's registration as a Level 2 sex offender. It found insufficient evidence to conclude that an elevated testosterone level was the sole cause of defendant's actions and that defendant has a psychological abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior. The court determined that forcible compulsion may be found to result from an express or implied threat, which must be viewed in the context of a frightened 11 year old girl alone in an automobile with an adult who has placed his hand under her dress.

People v. Yoel Oberlander - The Court held a sex offender classification hearing pursuant to 168 of the Correction Law. The hearing was held to classify the above named defendant who had just been sentenced to six years probation following his conviction for Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree. The defendant was present and was represented by counsel.

In connection with the hearing, the Court reviewed the pre-sentence report with pre-sentence memoranda, as well as the risk assessment instrument prepared by the District Attorney's Office. The Court examined psychiatric and psychological reports from Dr. Thomas and Dr. Berlin respectively. Additionally, the Court heard testimony from Dr. Thomas concerning his clinical opinion regarding the defendant risk to re-offend and the defendant's course of treatment, including the inter-muscular anti-androgen therapy.

Dr. Thomas has indicated that he has undertaken the responsibility of continuing therapy with the defendant. As part of that continuing treatment, in conjunction with weekly psychotherapy, Dr. Thomas will continue with the monthly injections of Depo-Lupron and continue to monitor the levels of testosterone in the defendant's blood. Further, Dr. Thomas has assured the Court that he will report any problems to the defendant's probation officer.

As a result of the treatments so far, the testosterone level in the defendant's blood has been significantly lowered. According to Dr. Thomas, the defendant has been "chemically castrated" and thereby rendered virtually asexual.

The recommendation contained in the Risk Assessment Instrument is the presumptive risk level to be applied to an offender. In this case, the defendant received an aggregate score of 85 points when scored by the District Attorney, making him a presumptive level two.

The Court finds that consistent with the risk level instrument, the defendant should be classified as a "level 2" offender. The Court bases its determination on an evaluation of the criteria set forth in Correction Law 168-l(5) including, but not limited to, the defendant's history, the nature of the offense, the number of victims and vulnerability of the victims.

The defendant contends the Risk Assessment Instrument is erroneous in that he did not employ forcible compulsion (10 points) and that the evidence did not demonstrate three or more victims (30 points). In fact, in a prior incident, the defendant made admissions of exposing his penis to young girls on five occasions over the two week period prior to his arrest. Five victims signed depositions in reference to exposure incidents in which the defendant was identified. Forcible compulsion is not confined to physical force, but may be found to result from a threat, express or implied, which must be viewed in the context of a frightened eleven year old girl alone in an automobile with an adult who has placed his hand under her dress.

In any event, the factors listed in the statute are not exhaustive and special circumstances may warrant a departure from the presumptive risk level if aggravating factors are present. The Court finds that an override would be warranted in any event, since the defendant has a psychological abnormality that decreases his ability to control impulsive sexual behavior. Dr. Berlin's report demonstrates that the defendant has a sexual disorder that manifested itself in a pattern of genital exhibitionism that escalated in his fondling of a young girl.

The defendant's sexual fantasies and recurrent urges concerning sexual activities with young girls continued even after intervention. Thereafter, aggressive pharmocological treatment in the form of Depo-Luperon medication was recommended to suppress the production of testosterone, to increase the defendant's capacity for self-control and to prevent sexual criminality.

While the defendant's course of treatment will undoubtedly have the physical effect of lowering the defendant's testosterone, the Court has not been provided with sufficient evidence such that it can determine that the treatment will alleviate the risk of re-offense. While intuitively, the Court understands that an elevated testosterone level will increase sexual urges, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that an elevated testosterone level was the sole cause of the defendant's actions.

Additionally, Dr. Thomas' experience with the Depo-Luperon treatment is anecdotal, and his personal experience with long term treatment is non-existent. According to Dr. Thomas, he has treated a total of eight patients with this inter-muscular anti-androgen therapy. However, the longest he has treated any one of those patients was two and one half years. It is anticipated that the defendant's course of treatment will exceed two and one half years.

While Dr. Thomas was no doubt earnest in his belief that the defendant does not pose a risk to re-offend in the future, that position is not supported by any personal experience. Further, the Court has not received a report of any reliable study of the long term efficacy of this course of treatment.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the public would be best served if the defendant were required to register as a level two offender.

This Decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sex offender notification

By Steve Liberman

Journal News - April 21, 2005

Sex offender

Name: Yoel Oberlander.

Address: 10952 ZIP code, Monsey.

Original jurisdiction: Spring Valley-Ramapo

Conviction: Nov. 27, 2002

Charge: second-degree sexual abuse.

Victim: 11-year-old girl.

Sentence: 6 years' probation.

Risk: moderate, Level 2.

A photograph of a 24-year-old Monsey man and details of his conviction for sexually abusing a child have been sent to Ramapo families.

Yoel Oberlander was classified by a court as a Level 2 offender, which is considered at moderate risk of becoming a repeat offender.

Oberlander pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors. He admitted in County Court to having sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl. The sexual abuse took place in the Spring Valley and Ramapo area.

Both police departments investigated Oberlander, who was sentenced to six years' probation.

Spring Valley police notified the East Ramapo school district that Oberlander had registered his home address in Monsey. The Ramapo Police Department also was notified.

Earlier this month, East Ramapo officials sent about 8,000 letters containing Oberlander's photo, conviction and ZIP code home with students to give to their parents. The district also sent the information to private schools in Ramapo.

Under state law, police can tell school districts only the ZIP code for a Level 2 offender, not the full address. A full address is provided for those considered high risk, or Level 3. The low-risk category is Level 1.

Oberlander was among several sex offenders recently reported to East Ramapo school district residents. People have posted their photos in town, though in some places, residents said, Oberlander's photo was taken down.

The notifications are sent out after an offender gets a classification hearing in County Court. A judge decides if a person is Level 1, 2 or 3. Hearings are held for those convicted between 1996 and 2000, those moving in from another state and those recently convicted.

_________________________________________________________________________________

2 Monsey sex offenders accused of violating new residence law

By Jane Lerner

Journal News - August 11, 2007

MONSEY - Two convicted sex offenders have been charged under a new law that prevents them from living near schools and other places where children gather, Ramapo police said yesterday.

The arrests of the two Monsey men might be the first time the county law has been used, Detective Lt. Brad Weidel said.

Ramapo police regularly check the whereabouts of the 17 registered sex offenders who live in town, Weidel said.

After the county enacted a law in February that prohibited sex offenders from coming within 1,000 feet of places where children gather, including schools, parks, day care centers and libraries, the town conducted an audit to see if the registered sex offenders were in compliance.

The law allows police to force designated Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders to move. Level 1 offenders are considered to be a low risk for repeat offenses. Level 3 offenders are considered the highest risk.

After checking all registered offenders in town, investigators identified two who appeared to be violating the law. They investigated further.

Yoel Oberlander, 26, was charged with violating the law because he lived within 1,000 feet of a private elementary school and public park.

He was arrested Thursday and told to return Aug. 16 to Ramapo Town Court.

Betzalel Dym, 21, was arrested yesterday and charged with violating the law by living within 1,000 feet of a child care facility. He was told to return Aug. 27 to Town Court.

The charges are a class B misdemeanor. A conviction on a first offense brings a fine of up to $500 and up to three months in jail.

Oberlander pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors.

He admitted in County Court to having sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl. The sexual abuse took place in Spring Valley and Ramapo.

Dym was convicted in August 2006 of first-degree sexual abuse, a felony, for having sex with a 10-year-old Monsey boy. Ramapo police arrested Dym for having sex with the child five times between January and May of that year.

Ramapo police said they had no reason to believe that either man was currently involved in illegal activity at their residences, Weidel said.

More information

- The state registry: www.criminaljustice.state.ny. us/nsor

- The state Division of Criminal Justice Services maintains an information line about the sex offender registry at 800-262-3257.

- Clarkstown Police Department's sex offender registry:www.town.clarkstown.ny.us/html/sex_offender_registry.asp

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sex offender challenges constitutionality of Rockland residency law

Vos Iz Neias - October 28, 2008

A sex offender is making a second stab at challenging the constitutionality of a Rockland law that limits where he and other classified abusers can live in the county.

Yoel Oberlander, 28, of Monsey argues in court papers that the county law preempts state law and therefore should be voided.

The Rockland County Attorney’s Office is defending the 2007 law as valid, since no New York state court has ruled on the issues being raised by Oberlander.

The county law prohibits high-risk sex offenders from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, libraries, public pools, day care facilities or other facilities that cater to children. The law empowers police to investigate people found in those areas who are considered suspicious. People in violation of the law face a misdemeanor charge.

Oberlander’s legal papers, filed yesterday, will be dissected by state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly, who sits in the Rockland Courthouse in New City.

Kelly upheld the county law in July after an initial challenge by Oberlander and Betzalel Dym, 22, of Monsey on religious grounds.

Oberlander’s court papers cite a New Jersey court ruling voiding local living zones for sex offenders as conflicting with that state’s law.

Oberlander also argues the Rockland law is not consistent since it allows sex offenders to live within the 1,000-foot zones, if they had been there before passage of the law.

The Rockland law, he argues, also defies the state law’s desire to integrate sex offenders within the community, rather than creating enclaves within the county.

The Legislature adopted the law and County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef signed it, though there were misgivings concerning the effectiveness of the law.

_________________________________________________________________________________

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ROCKLAND

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

-against-

IND. #

02-354

YOEL OBERLANDER,

Defendant.

Following a Violation of Probation hearing in this matter, the defendant moved for an Order dismissing the violation. The defendant claimed Local Law No. 1 of 2007 was preempted by New York State Law.

The Violation of Probation alleges that the defendant violated the conditions of probation in that he “moved to a residence within 1,000 feet of a ‘Rockland County pedophile-free child safety zone’ in violation of Local Law No. 1 of 2007.”

Local Law No. 1 of 2007 provides that a sex offender shall not reside, work or loiter within a child safety zone. “The term child safety zone shall mean one thousand feet of the real property comprising a public or private, elementary, middle or high school, child care facility, park playground, public or private youth center or public swimming pool.” Id.

The Court previously considered a pre-hearing motion to dismiss based upon the Constitutionality of the local law. In a decision and Order dated June 18, 2008, this Court held that Local Law No. 1 of 2007 was not Unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant.

The defendant’s Constitutional challenge was based upon the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The defendant claimed that because he is an -- observant orthodox Jew, he must live within walking distance of a Schul or temple. As a result he claims that the statute placed a burden on the practice of his religion. However, this Court held that the statute was facially neutral and did not unduly burden the defendant’s practice of his religion. In that prior motion, the Court was not presented with the claim that Local Law No.1 of 2007 was preempted by State legislation.

Sex offender residency restrictions are multiplying throughout New York State, as local legislatures scramble to outmaneuver each other with highly restrictive ordinances designed to banish registered offenders from their communities.

“Not in my backyard” residency restrictions are spreading unchecked through county, town and village ordinance books from Suffolk County to Niagara Falls. More than 80 such laws have recently been enacted in New York. Police and prosecutors are now enforcing them, ordering offenders to move from restricted zones and filing criminal charges for non compliance. Even without vigorous enforcement, the ordinances interfere with parole and probation officers’ efforts to find suitable housing for offenders. Alfred O’Connor, State Preemption of Local Sex-Offender Residency Laws N.Y.L.J. November 24, 2008 (hereinafter O’Connor).

The New York State Constitution allows municipalities broad police power relating to the welfare of its citizens. People v. Speakerkits, Inc., 83 N.Y.2d 814 (1994); N.Y.S. Club Assoc. v. City of N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 211 (1987). However, that local police power may not be exercised in an area in which it is preempted by State law. Id. See also Levy v. City Commission on Human Rights, 85 N.Y.2d 740 (1995); Village of Nyack v. Daytop Village, Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 500 (1991); -- People v. Cook, 34 N.Y.2d 100 (1974). Preemption appliesboth in cases of express conflict between local and State law and in cases where the State has evidenced its intent to occupy the field.” Matter of Cohen v. Bd. of App. Village of Saddle Rock, 100 N.Y.2d 395 (2003)(quoting Albany Area Builder’s Assoc. v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372 (1989)).

“Under [the preemption] doctrine, even in the absence of an express conflict, a local law which regulates subject matter in a field which has been preempted by State legislation is deemed inconsistent with the ‘State's transcendent interest.’” Ba Mar, Inc. v. County of Rockland, 164 A.D.2d 605 (2nd Dep’t 1991)(quoting Albany Area Builder’s Assoc. v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372 (1989)).

“On the other hand, the mere fact that both the State and local governments seek to regulate the same subject matter does not, in and of itself, render the local legislation invalid on preemption grounds.

In order for the preemption doctrine to prohibit local legislation in a particular area there must be an intent on the part of the State to occupy the entire field.” Id. “The legislative intent to preempt need not be express. It is enough that the Legislature has impliedly evinced its desire to do so and that desire may be inferred from a declaration of State policy by the Legislature or from the legislative enactment of a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular area.” N.Y.S. Club Assoc. v. City of N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 211, 217 (1987). Additionally, “that intent may be implied from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the State legislative scheme, including the need for Statewide uniformity in a given area.” Albany Area Builder’s Assoc. v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372, 400 (1989).

In nearly factually identical circumstances, a New Jersey Appellate Court struck down local legislation imposing housing restrictions of sex offenders --holding that State law preempted local legislation (preempting more than 100 local sex offender ordinances). G.H. v. Township of Galloway, 401 N.J. Super. 392 (App. Div. 2008). In doing so, that Court held that New Jersey’s version of Megan’s Law constituted a comprehensive legislative scheme enacted to protect citizens from sex offenders. Id.

New Jersey has no statewide sex offender residency law. But the court held the Legislature had manifested an intention to “occupy the field” of community regulation of sex offenders so as to preclude local ones. The court based its conclusion on Megan’s Law and its multilayered enforcement and monitoring mechanisms,” the court wrote, “constitute a comprehensive system chosen by the Legislature to protect society from the risk of re-offense by CSO’s (convicted sex offenders) and to provide for their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.” Registration and community notification rules reflect legislative “expectation (s) that CSO’s would be living among the general population” where they are more likely to find suitable housing, “with support systems provided by family members and others, reasonable proximity to employment, public transportation networks and treatment programs.” Local ordinances, the court found, “inadvertently increase the chance of re-offense” by either banishing offenders from entire communities or confining them to areas without adequate housing or transportation.

Using an analysis similar to that used by the New York Court of Appeals, the New Jersey Court set forth five factors useful in analyzing preemption claims:

1. Does the ordinance conflict with state law, either because of conflicting policies or operational effect (that is, does the ordinance forbid what the Legislature has permitted or does the ordinance permit what the Legislature has forbidden)? 2. Was the state law intended, expressly or impliedly, to be exclusive in -- the field?
3. Does the subject matter reflect a need for uniformity?....
4. Is the state scheme so pervasive or comprehensive that it precludes coexistence of municipal regulation?
5. Does the ordinance stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of the Legislature?Id. See also N.Y.S. Club Assoc. v. City of N.Y., 69 N.Y.2d 211, 217 (1987); Albany Area Builder’s Assoc. v. Town of Guilderland, 74 N.Y.2d 372, 400 (1989).

The New Jersey court’s analysis is relevant in New York because our states have similar laws governing community supervision of sex offenders. New York’s Megan’s Law also establishes an individualized, three tiered registration and classification scheme based on the perceived risk of re-offense. New York like

New Jersey authorizes targeted community notification concerning most sex offenders.

Parole officers in New York, like their counterparts in New Jersey, exercise broad veto authority over the proposed residences of sex offenders. Extended parole supervision is the rule in both states.

New York has a statewide sex offender residency restriction. In 2005, the Legislature barred all under supervision sex offenders whose victims were minors, and all level 3 offenders, from knowingly “entering” (and, for practical purposes, residing) within 1,000 feet of the “real property boundary line of a public or private elementary [school], parochial, intermediate, junior high, vocational or high school.” The restriction is enforceable as a condition of parole or probation. This statewide restriction is not widely known. Local legislatures continue to approve residency ordinances while apparently unaware of it. In fact, New York has one of the strictest sex offender residency law in the nation.

Yet, by excluding certain low risk offenders, and including geographic and -- durational limits, it strikes some balance between the perceived need for buffer zones, and the long-term goal of reintegrating offenders into the community. Local residency laws don’t. They permanently exclude offenders from communities, setting off a chain-reaction of fear-driven and increasingly restrictive laws.

Megan’s Law and the state residency restriction are powerful indications of the New York Legislature’s intention to “occupy the field” of community management of sex offenders. See O’Connor, supra.

Clearly New York has promulgated a detailed legislative scheme regarding the registration of sex offenders. Correction Law §168 et. sec. New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act [hereinafter “SORA”] was enacted to combat “the danger of recidivism posed by sex offenders, especially those sexually violent offenders who commit predatory acts characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, and that the protection of the public from these offenders is of paramount concern or interest to government.” The legislature stated that the -- system of registering sex offenders is a proper exercise of the state's police power regulating present and ongoing conduct.”[emphasis added]. Section 1 of the Laws of 2008 further states that “the legislature has enacted a series of laws to monitor sex offenders and protect the public from victimization, specifically, a system to: register sex offenders; provide law enforcement agencies, entities with vulnerable populations, and the general public access to information contained in the state's sex offender registry; prohibit high risk sex offenders from entering upon

school grounds; and civilly confine dangerous sex offenders who would likely reoffend if released. Such laws have enhanced the state's ability to protect the public and prevent further victimization, sexual abuse and exploitation.” In addition to SORA, at the time of the alleged offense, Penal Law §65.10(4-a) and the Executive Law §259-c(14) were in effect. Those sections limited the proximity of sex offenders to school grounds and day care centers. Clearly, the State has a “comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme” in the area. The State’s intent to preempt the field can clearly be inferred.

The State has also expressly stated its intention of preempting the area by enacting further changes to the Executive Law and the Social Services Law Chapter 568 of the Laws of 2008. Under the newly enacted §243 of the Executive Law, local probation departments will be expressly charged with the approval of sex offenders’ housing for offenders, like the defendant, who are on probation. Under the amended section, the local probation departments must evaluate the housing of offenders using five statutory requirements rather than the bright line linear designations of Local Law No. 1 of 2007. The “Approval Memorandum” accompanying the new legislation states that “the placement of [sex] offenders in -- the community has been and will continue to be a matter that is properly addressed by the State. [emphasis added].

In any event, Local Law No. 1 of 2007 impermissibly conflicts with the State enactments in the area in that it prohibits all housing described in the statute without regard to the approval of the probation department. Further, the local ordinance prohibits the offenders presence within 1000 feet of a child safety zone whereas the state law merely prohibits entry onto such premises.

Additionally, the mandatory criteria to be applied under the new statutory scheme contains no such arbitrary bright line rule concerning the location of an offender’s home. Rather, the new regulations requires consideration of the “proximity of entities with vulnerable populations” as but one of the criteria.

As the State has expressed its intention to preempt the area, and, the ordinance conflicts with State law, Local Law No. 1 of 2007 is invalid. A Violation of Probation based upon such law cannot be maintained.

The result would be the same even if the Court was to reach the merits of the alleged violation.

The People bear the burden of establishing a violation of probation by a preponderance of evidence. C.P.L. §410.70(3). In considering the evidence presented, it is clear that the People met this burden. It was established that the defendant resided in pedophile-free child safety zone in violation of Local Law No. 1 of 2007.

However, a defendant must be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate a “justifiable excuse” for a technical violation. Black v. Romano, 471 U.S.606, 612 (1985). See also People v. Costanza, 281 A.D.2d 120 (3rd Dep’t 2001); People v. Brandon F., 299 A.D.2d 962 (4th Dep’t 2002). In this case, the defendant easily -- met this burden as he established that compliance with the housing requirement was nearly impossible.

At the time the violation was filed, the defendant’s residence, other than its location within a buffer zone, was considered to be appropriate by the Department of Probation for a sex offender. As such, when he was informed that the residence violated Local Law No. 1, the defendant was instructed to remain in that residence until new housing could be located.

There was no central map or list of addresses available to probationers or probation officers to determine where to look for appropriate housing. The Department of Probation could not suggest addresses or even particular areas to the defendant. Instead, the probationer was instructed to submit an address to his probation officer. The probation officer would then forward the address to the Rockland County Planning Department. The planning department would then determine if the address fell within a safety zone.

According to his probation officer, the defendant submitted fifteen addresses for approval. Each time, the probation officer rejected the address as it fell within a safety zone. The probation officer conceded that no appropriate addresses existed in the Village of Monsey and that it was likely that none existed in the Town of Ramapo.

It is clear that the defendant tried to comply with the law. The defendant, on approximately fifteen occasions was able to find available housing. Each time, the defendant’s proposed residence was rejected, not based upon the Probation Department’s assessment of suitability, but, solely because it violated Local Law No.1. There was no resource available that would allow the defendant to determine the suitability of housing prospectively. The cumbersome procedure only exacerbates the central problem facing the defendant, namely, the lack of --housing in suitable locations.

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion is granted and the Violation of Probation is dismissed.

This Decision shall constitute the Order of the Court.

E N T E R

Dated: New City, New York

January 22, 2009

WILLIAM A. KELLY

J.S.C.

TO: THOMAS P. ZUGIBE, ESQ.

District Attorney of Rockland County

PATRICIA ZUGIBE, ESQ.

Rockland County Attorney

DAVID GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

_________________________________________________________________________________

Two Monsey sex offenders live at new addresses
By Jane Lerner
Journal News - May 12, 2011

RAMAPO — Two convicted sex offenders recently have moved to new addresses within the town and police have updated their public records in an effort to warn neighbors.

Both men now live at new addresses in Monsey.

Shimon Rosen

Shimon Rosen, 42, moved to 68 Laura Drive. He had previously lived elsewhere in Monsey.

Yoel Oberlander, 30, moved to 30 West Maple Ave., upstairs, according to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, which maintains a website list of sex offenders.

Both men notified Ramapo police of the moves within the past month, according to Lt. Mark Emma.

"They are required to tell us when they move and they complied with the requirement," he said.

Rockland school districts are informing parents of the move.

Clarkstown sent an email to parents Wednesday and East Ramapo was planning to do the same Thursday. Ramapo Central was considering doing the same.

Rosen is considered a level-three offender, which means he is at the highest risk of repeating his crime. He was arrested July 27, 1991, by Ramapo police. He was convicted Sept. 3, 1991, of second-degree sodomy of a 12-year-old and a 7-year-old boy, both strangers to him.

He was sentenced to five years probation.

Yoel Oberlander

Oberlander had sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl.

He pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful imprisonment and endangering the welfare of a child, all misdemeanors.

His sentence was six years probation and he was classified as a Level 2 offender, considered a moderate risk to re-offend.

Oberlander was charged in 2009 with a misdemeanor because he was living near a school and a park in violation of a 2007 county law.

The law was thrown out by the state Supreme Court and the case was dropped.

Neither man had been charged since their original convictions, police said.

Classification levels

• Level 3 is considered at high risk of repeating an offense. Police can provide schools and other establishments dealing with children or other vulnerable populations with an offender's photograph, address and background information. Level 3 offenders remain on the state registry for life.

• Level 2 offenders are considered at moderate risk of repeating an offense. Police can provide the same information they provide with Level 3 offenders. Level 2 offenders can petition to be taken off the registry after 30 years.

• Level 1 offenders are considered a low risk to repeat. Police can notify schools and other establishments of the offender's name and ZIP code.

Sex offender registry

To learn whether a high-risk sex offender lives in your area, go to the state Division of Criminal Justice Services' Sex Offender Registry at www.criminaljustice.state.ny.us.

The state Division of Criminal Justice Services maintains a Sex Offender Registry Information Line at 800-262-3257.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Registered sex offender sneaks into Catskills sleep-away camp
Man identified as Yoel Oberlander somehow got into kids' sleeping area
CBS News-New York - August 16, 2012

SOUTH FALLSBURG, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — An intruder at a Catskills sleep-away camp had parents asking hard questions on Wednesday.

CBS 2’s Lou Young traveled to Sullivan County to find out more about the man who sparked a state police investigation.

He was a stranger in their midst. Campers at Camp Shalva, a Catskills retreat for young Hasidic teens and children, said they woke last week to the alarming sight of a man roaming their sleeping area.

“There was somebody who did not belong in the bunkhouses and they were awakened by the presence of that individual,” camp spokesman David Schars said.

Security cameras caught the images of the intruder inside one of the boys’ dormitories. Young has learned the footage shows the man in a hallway and that he steps out of sight several times for short durations of time.

Examination of the image indicates the man is a registered sex offender who works as a deliveryman for a kosher food service, police said.

His name, Young has learned, is Yoel Oberlander of Monsey and camp directors said he had no reason to be near the dormitory or any of the children staying at the sleep-away camp. The school said it is checking for any evidence of inappropriate physical contact.

“It’s certainly something we can’t rule out given the fact that the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator has an alleged history and was in proximity to children. We would hope and expect that that would be fully investigated,” Schars said.

Sources told Young that Oberlander’s employers at Golden Taste Kosher Foods are discussing his future with the company, although they adamantly refused to talk with Young when he stopped by their Spring Valley offices.

“No comment. I said no comment,” an employee said.

The camp caters almost exclusively to children of Hasidic parents living in Brooklyn.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Monsey sex offender Yoel Oberlander slips into boys' dorm, cops say

By Nik Bonopartis

Newsday - August 17, 2012

A convicted sex offender was arrested on trespassing charges Thursday after police say he entered a boys' dormitory in a Sullivan County sleepaway camp, sparking fear and outrage in New York's close-knit Orthodox Jewish community.

Yoel Oberlander, 32, of Monsey, turned himself in to State Police on Thursday, eight days after he allegedly slipped into a bunkhouse at Camp Shalva in South Fallsburg, where 13- and 14-year-old boys were sleeping, cops said.

Oberlander, an employee of kosher food company Golden Taste in Monsey, was delivering milk to the camp in the early morning hours of Aug. 8, and surveillance video shows him walking around by himself in the Orthodox all-boys camp. He was charged with second-degree trespassing, a misdemeanor, and posted $5,500 bail at Sullivan County Jail.

Those at the camp were also given an order of protection that prohibits Oberlander from returning there or contacting any residents of the property.

A State Police investigator said there are no additional charges pending.

Despite that, some members of the community say they're outraged. The fear and reaction among community members stems from Oberlander's criminal history.

He was convicted in 2002 of second-degree sexual abuse after forcing himself on an 11-year-old girl, state records show. Oberlander, who did not know the victim before the attack, was sentenced to six months of probation but avoided jail time.

In 2005, thousands of families in Ramapo received a warning and a photo of Oberlander when the convicted sex offender moved to Monsey.

"Why does a food supply company send a registered sex offender on a route that includes summer camps?" asked Ben Hirsch, president of advocacy group Survivors for Justice.

Hirsch said he has spoken to parents of children in the camp and served as a liaison between the Orthodox community and State Police investigators.

Parents and camp leaders told Hirsch that the children said in Yiddish that Oberlander tickled their feet, but "these kids do not have language for any sexual activity," Hirsch said.

Survivors For Justice, after hearing about the alleged incident a day after it occurred, reported it to police, who then followed up with adults at Camp Shalva, Hirsch said.

Attempts to reach Oberlander and managers at Golden Taste Friday morning were unsuccessful.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Truck driver accused of molesting campers charged with trespassing

By Marcy Oster

JTA - August 19, 2012

A truck driver who was accused of molesting several campers at a summer camp for Chasidic boys was charged with trespassing.

An investigation determined that there was “no allegation of sexual abuse” against Yoel Oberlander, 31, a convicted molester and registered sex offender, according to the New York Post.

Oberlander, of Monsey, N.Y., was arrested Aug. 16 and charged with criminal trespass in Fallsburg Town Court. Eventually he was released on $5,500 bail; no trial date was set. Oberlander was prohibited from returning to Camp Shalva, near South Fallsburg, N.Y.

Oberlander was caught on camera entering bunks for seventh-and eighth-graders at the camp early on Aug. 8 while he was there delivering kosher milk.

In 2002, he pleaded guilty to molesting an 11-year-old girl and was sentenced to six years of probation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sex offender busted after sneaking in where orthodox Jewish kids were sleeping at camp
By Susan Edelman
New York Post - August 17, 2012

A registered sex offender delivering milk to an Orthodox Jewish summer camp for Brooklyn boys was arrested yesterday — a week after he was caught by cameras sneaking into buildings where kids were sleeping, state police said.

Yoel Oberlander, 31, of Monsey, was charged with trespassing Aug. 8 at Camp Shalva in South Fallsburg between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m.

“He knowingly entered and unlawfully remained in the bunk, the sleeping quarters of the boys,” said State Police Capt. Joseph Tripodo.

Tripodo said an investigation found “no allegation of sexual abuse.”

Oberlander, a truck driver employed by the Golden Taste kosher-food company, was convicted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old girl in Rockland County in 2002.

In 2008, he unsuccessfully challenged a Rockland County law that limited where sex offenders could live.

He was being held yesterday in the Sullivan County jail on $5,500 bail.

E. David Scharf, a spokesman for the camp, said Oberlander was seen on security video in the halls “going in and out of the sleeping quarters. with not enough time to commit an act of molestation.”

Survivors for Justice, an advocacy group. first alerted police early Thursday after receiving reports that boys were touched by an intruder, and told not to call their parents.

Camp directors waited about 35 hours before calling a criminal lawyer, who advised them to alert authorities.

“An immediate report would have protected kids in other camps where this driver was making deliveries that day and the next,” complained SFJ spokesman Ben Hirsch. “We hope the children were not pressured into changing their stories.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sex offender busted after sneaking in where orthodox Jewish kids were sleeping at camp

By Susan Edelman

New York Post - August 17, 2012