You are here: / / UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL NOT AUTHORIZED, CRITERIA...
,

UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL NOT AUTHORIZED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the upward departure from the presumptive risk level was not authorized. The facts were not discussed but the applicable law was clearly explained:

Once the presumptive risk level has been established at a risk level hearing, the court is permitted to depart from it if “special circumstances” warrant a departure … . An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, that there exists an aggravating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines … .

“Under SORA, a court must follow three analytical steps to determine whether or not to order a departure from the presumptive risk level indicated by the offender’s guidelines factor score. At the first step, the court must decide whether the aggravating or mitigating circumstances alleged by a party seeking a departure are, as a matter of law, of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . “At the second step, the court must decide whether the party requesting the departure has adduced sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof in establishing that the alleged aggravating or mitigating circumstances actually exist in the case at hand. If the party applying for a departure surmounts the first two steps, the law permits a departure, but the court still has discretion to refuse to depart or to grant a departure” (id. [citations omitted]). If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to upwardly depart from the presumptive risk level … .

Under the circumstances presented, the People did not meet their burden of proof with respect to the first two requirements. Therefore, an upward departure was not authorized … . People v Cassarly, 2017 NY Slip Op 05251, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
French Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over New York Defendant/Service Not Accomplished In Accordance with Hague Convention
THE PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT),
Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Justification Defense Required Reversal and a New Trial/Referring to the Defendant as a Liar, Vouching for the People’s Case, and Asking the Jury to Draw Inferences Not Based Upon the Evidence Constitutes Prosecutorial Misconduct
DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
STATUTORY PENALTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN CLASS ACTIONS UNLESS THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES RECOVERY IN A CLASS ACTION, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
Stipulation of Settlement Not Enforceable/All Material Terms Not Included
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (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

TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS... SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE...