You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court, noted that a defendant has the right to be present at a SORA hearing, and here the defendant did not waive that right:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing” … . While a defendant may waive the right to be present at the hearing, in order to establish a valid waiver it must be shown, inter alia, 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, there is no evidence that the defendant was notified of the adjourned hearing date. Therefore, as the People correctly concede, the record fails to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing … . People v Hunt, 2018 NY Slip Op 01087, Second Dept 2-14-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Failure to Serve Superintendent of Schools in Accordance with RPTL Required Dismissal of Property Tax Certiorari Proceeding
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A LOAN PAYABLE UPON DEMAND ACCRUES WHEN THE LOAN IS MADE.
PROSECUTOR’S REASONS FOR STRIKING TWO BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE PRETEXTUAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1304 REQUIRES THAT THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE BE MAILED SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER; HERE THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO BOTH BORROWERS IN A SINGLE ENVELOPE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Changing Custody Arrangement Entered Into by Agreement

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

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS GANG ASSAULT CASE (FIRST... 8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF...