You are here: / / Criteria for Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding Explained
,

Criteria for Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding Explained

The Second Department explained the criteria for a downward departure in a SORA proceeding:

A court has the discretion to downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level in a proceeding pursuant to SORA (see Correction Law article 6-C) only when the defendant makes a twofold showing … . The defendant must first 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” (…see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006 ed]). Next, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support the applicability of that mitigating factor … . In the absence of this twofold showing, the court lacks discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … . Here, the defendant failed to make the requisite showings. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level … . People v Ologbonjaiye, 2013 NY Slip Op 05807, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SOUNDS IN TORT TRIGGERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow and Ice 
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT, QUASI CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF SCHOOL BUS COMPANY WAS SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE MONTHS THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE RETURN DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS MISCALEDARED AS THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF OPPOSITION PAPERS; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
A CONDITION WHICH MIGHT BE DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS CAN BECOME A “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY” WHEN A PERSON IS DISTRACTED; HERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WHEN HIS FOOT WAS CAUGHT IN A DEPRESSION BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S FENCE AND THE SIDEWALK AS PLAINTIFF TRIED TO SEPARATE TWO FIGHTING DOGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

Four-Year Statute of Limitations for Rent Overcharge Claim Mitigating Factor (12 Years Since Release) Did Not Warrant Downward Departure...