You are here: / / Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​
,

Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​

The Second Department explained the two factors a defendant must demonstrate for a downward departure in a SORA proceeding:

First, a defendant must identify, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which “tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [SORA] Guidelines”…. Second, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support that mitigating factor …. In the absence of that twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level …. People v Henry, 2013 NY Slip Op 03309, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

You might also like
IN THIS MEDIDCAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE HOSPITAL-DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE MALPRACTICE ALLEGATIONS AND OFFERED CONSLUSORY ASSERTIONS; THEREFORE THE HOSPITAL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Damages Related to Improvements Made on Condemned Property Allowed.
REAL PROPERTY LAW 329 PROVIDES THAT THE OWNER OF PROPERTY CAN BRING ACTIONS TO CANCEL RECORDED ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THE PLAINTIFF LACKED STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
Rule Against Successive Summary Judgment Motions Does Not Apply to Issue Rejected as Not Properly Before the Court (Raised for the First Time in Reply Papers) in the Original Motion
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
LANDOWNERS NEGATED BOTH POTENTIAL THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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

Conflicting Expert Opinions, One of Which Was “Conclusory” with Respect... Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted...