You are here: / / Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment...
,

Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment of Points Against Defendant for Drug Abuse

The Second Department determined points for drug abuse should not have been assessed against defendant based solely on a “marijuana” convictions:

… [T]he hearing court erred in assessing points under risk factor 11 (Drug or Alcohol Abuse) based solely on the fact that the defendant’s criminal history includes convictions for the possession and sale of marijuana. Under risk factor 11, possession or sale of marijuana does not, in itself, amount to drug abuse … . Since the People presented no evidence that the defendant had ever used, much less abused, drugs or alcohol, the evidence offered by the People was insufficient to satisfy their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant had “a substance abuse history or was abusing drugs and or alcohol at the time of the offense”.. . People v Velazquez, 2015 NY Slip Op 06323, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

You might also like
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE MEDICAL RECORDS PROVIDED THE STATE WITH TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER A CONDOMINIUM TO MAKE REPAIRS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Overriding Village Legislative Cap on Number of Taxicab Licenses Not a Proper Subject of Mandamus Action—Applicability of Mandamus Explained
THE ALLEGATIONS BY THE CHILDREN WERE SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED TO SUPPORT A FINDING FATHER COMMITTED DOMESTIC ABUSE AND THEREBY NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE SET IN A STATUS CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS AMBIVALENT ABOUT WHEN HE WAS SERVED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND, IT IS PLAINTIFF’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE A DEFENDANT WAS TIMELY SERVED WITH A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (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 Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior... The Prejudicial Effect of the Result of the Portable Breath Test (PBT) Outweighed...