You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING,...
, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a new Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk level hearing because his attorney did not advocate his position and did not understand the availability of downward departure:

​

A defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel in a SORA proceeding … . Here, the defendant’s counsel “failed to litigate any aspect of the adjudication” … , and, instead, affirmatively asserted that there was no basis on which to challenge or depart from the presumptive risk level. Moreover, defense counsel’s comments suggested that there was no basis for a downward departure because the points “add[ed] up validly,” thus demonstrating a misunderstanding of the law regarding downward departures from the presumptive risk level … . These facts, as well as defense counsel’s failure to seek a downward departure under the circumstances of this case, operated to deprive the defendant of meaningful representation in the SORA proceeding … . People v Collins, 2017 NY Slip Op 08866, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SORA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, SORA HEARING, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SORA, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (ATTORNEYS, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK LEVEL HEARING, COUNSEL DID NOT ADVOCATE FOR HIM AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE WAS AVAILABLE, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
NEW YORK WOULD REMAIN “HOME STATE” FOR A CUSTODY MATTER IF FATHER WRONGFULLY PREVENTED CHILDREN FROM RETURNING TO NEW YORK FROM BANGLADESH IN THE SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION.
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS STAIRWAY FALL BUT HE TESTIFIED HE REACHED FOR A HANDRAIL AND THERE WAS NONE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PRESENCE OR NEED FOR A HANDRAIL; THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF A FALL; DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE NOTICE SENT TO THE BORROWERS IN 2012 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS REVERSE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT WAS NAMED AS A BORROWER IN THE MORTGAGE (WHICH SHE SIGNED) BUT NOT IN THE NOTE; THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE MUST BE READ AS A SINGLE AGREEMENT, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A “SURVIVING BORROWER” THEREBY PRECLUDING FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
WATER VALVE CAP OVER WHICH INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WHILE PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE STREET WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (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

FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY QUESTION JUROR ABOUT HER ABILITY TO BE FAIR AFTER SHE... ALTHOUGH CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL DEFENDANTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE ARBITRATION...