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
THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Response to Sex Offender Treatment Program Must Be “Exceptional” to Warrant Downward Departure (SORA)
THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
A Police Report of a Vehicle Accident Involving Respondent’s Employee Was Not Sufficient to Alert Respondent to the Facts Underlying Petitioner’s Claim—Petition to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Not Have Reformed Settlement Agreement/Criteria for “Mutual Mistake” Not Met

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...