You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN...
,

DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Eng, determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request for a downward departure in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment proceeding. Defendant submitted two psychological risk assessments, the Static-99R and the Vermont Assessment, in support of the request for downward departure:

​

To recognize a low or moderate-low score on the Static-99R and/or the Vermont Assessment as a mitigating factor would, in essence, permit SORA courts to rely on those instruments in lieu of the RAI [New York’s Risk Assessment Instrument} promulgated by the Board [of examiners of sex offenders] and designed to account for the specific factors prescribed by the Legislature. This would amount to a rejection of the RAI in favor of assessment instruments that serve the more limited function of attempting to measure risk of reoffense alone, in clear contravention of the legislative intent to require consideration of both risk of reoffense and the danger of harm posed by reoffense … . …

​

Even were we to accept the proposition that the fact that a sex offender received a more favorable assessment on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment could constitute an appropriate mitigating factor, we would find that the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his request for a downward departure on this basis. …

​

Our conclusion that an offender’s lower risk score on an alternate risk assessment instrument is not itself a mitigating factor that can support a downward departure does not necessarily mean that an offender cannot rely upon one or more of the individual risk factors included on such instruments to demonstrate that he or she is at a lower risk of reoffense or poses less of a danger to the community. While some of the risk factors included on the Static-99R and Vermont Assessment are also taken into account by the RAI, other risk factors are unique to those instruments. Here, however, the defendant has not identified any specific, unique risk factors on the Static-99R or Vermont Assessment that could qualify as a mitigating factor. People v Curry, 2017 NY Slip Op 09184, Second Dept 12-27-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) ( DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/MITIGATING FACTORS  (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT))/

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW A MOTION TO VACATE THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON THE REVERSE MORTGAGE WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
Leave to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted—Criteria Explained
COUNTY NOT LIABLE IN THIS INMATE-ON-INMATE THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR HOLE IN BRICKWORK PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ACTION TO RECOVER PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSURED WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PREMIUM DUE DATE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PARAMEDIC DEFENDANT WAS ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING WAS NOT A PEACE OFFICER AND... FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF MOTHER...