You are here: / / FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING ...
,

FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Second Department determine the steps taken to notify defendant of the SORA hearing were not adequate to ensure defendant was notified. Therefore defendant could not be deemed to have waived his presence at the hearing:

​

” A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing'” … . “[W]here there is a question as to whether the defendant’s failure to appear is deliberate, in order to establish a waiver, evidence must be presented that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of his right to be present, and that the hearing would be conducted in his absence” … .

Here, when defense counsel and the People initially appeared for the hearing, and the defendant failed to appear, the Supreme Court, recognizing its duty to ensure that any waiver of the defendant’s right to be present was voluntary, adjourned the matter to permit defense counsel to send a notice to the defendant, by certified mail, return-receipt requested. Defense counsel sent the letter, but never received a return receipt from the post office or a response from the defendant, with whom he had never met or consulted. Defense counsel did not indicate any efforts he made to determine whether his letter had been delivered, such as, by contacting the post office. Further, there was no evidence in the record that notice was sent to the defendant by the court, but, even presuming such [*2]notice was sent, there was no evidence as to whether the notice was delivered or returned. Nor was there evidence regarding how the court or defense counsel obtained the address to which notices were sent. Thus, as defense counsel asserted, there was reason to believe that the defendant may not have received notice of the hearing. Indeed, even the court acknowledged that possibility.

Since the record failed to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, the order must be reversed, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant. People v Jenkins, 2017 NY Slip Op 04869, 2nd Dept 6-14-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL)/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL)

You might also like
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT REQUIRED A HOMEOWNER TO TAKE DOWN A FENCE; HOWEVER THE AUTHORITY FOR THE HEAVY FINE (OVER $35,000) WAS NOT VALID PURSUANT TO THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BARE DENIAL OF THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether the Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Professional Malpractice Was Tolled by the “Continuous Representation” Doctrine
Evidence of an “Intimate Relationship” Sufficient to Give Family Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Family Offense Proceeding
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY DETAINED, ONCE THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH REVEALED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A WEAPON THE POLICE WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING THE (STOLEN) WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET AND SEARCHING IT; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS UNDER THE STANDARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR (SECOND DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY MEDICAL RECORDS; DEFENDANT PODIATRIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA... MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE...