You are here: / / Motion for SORA Downward Departure Requires Hearing​
,

Motion for SORA Downward Departure Requires Hearing​

The Second Department reversed the motion court because a motion for a downward departure (SORA) pursuant to Correction Law 168-o(2) requires a hearing:

By notice of motion dated September 21, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6-C). The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion without holding a hearing. Because the requisite procedures set forth in Correction Law § 168-o were not followed, we reverse.  As the People correctly concede, the Supreme Court failed to conduct a hearing on the defendant’s motion, as it was required to do pursuant to Correction Law § 168-o(4) …. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing and, thereafter, a new determination of the defendant’s motion. People v Runko, 2013 NY Slip Op 02555, 2012-07328, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether City Created Hazardous Condition
A Forged Deed Is Void Ab Initio and Conveys Nothing to a Bona Fide Purchaser or Encumbrancer
PLAINTIFF STATED A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO PAY THE PREVAILING WAGE FOR WORK ON PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST DAY CARE PROVIDER PROPERLY DISMISSED.
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES TO MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FATHER WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE OF ANY FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT; THE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED; THE RELEVANT REGULATORY AND STATUTORY CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ELEVATED BOARDWALK WITH NO GUARDRAILS WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; THE VILLAGE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S RIDING OFF THE BOARDWALK (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court’s Explanation of Lien Law Presumption (Where Money Held In Trust by... Breath Test Results Suppressed Because Defendant Not Informed Her Attorney Had...