You are here: / / EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE ...
,

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the evidence was not sufficient to justify and upward departure from a Level Two to a Level Three sex offender. Defendant restricted the freedom of a child who subsequently was either released or escaped when her friend, who had escaped, called for her. Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping. County Court's upward departure was, in the opinion of the majority, based upon speculation about defendant's motives and intentions, which did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of aggravating circumstances not taken into account by the risk assessment:

We agree with defendant that the court erred in granting the People's request for an upward departure from a presumptive level two risk to a level three risk based upon its assumption that the victim would have suffered greater harm had the other child not intervened and allowed the victim to escape. While it may be reasonable to assume that defendant had sinister intentions when he lured two young children into his home, such an assumption does not constitute the requisite “clear and convincing evidence that there exist aggravating circumstances of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines”… . People v Baldwin, 2016 NY Slip Op 03609, 4th Dept 5-6-16

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/SORA (EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/UPWARD DEPARTURE (SORA, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)/EVIDENCE (SORA RISK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING)

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCAFFOLD WAS AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
In a Partition Action, Tenant in Common Not Liable to Other Tenants in Common for Use and Occupancy of the Property/Tenant in Common Entitled to Reimbursement from Other Tenants in Common for Taxes and Repairs
RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE MOTHER HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR A DRUG OFFENSE WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION FOR A CUSTODY MODIFICATION 4TH DEPT.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF A TOE BOARD WAS AT LEAST A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest a Search Was Followed by Defendant’s Entering a Guilty Plea—Because Defendant May Not Have Pled Guilty Had the Suppression Motion Been Held and Suppression Granted, the Matter Was Remitted for a Suppression Hearing (After Defendant Had Completed His Sentence)
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT... FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO ALLOW MOTHER TO APPEAR BY...