You are here: / / SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX...
,

SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined County Court should not have granted the People’s request for an upward departure in this Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment proceeding based upon a schizophrenia diagnosis:

Although the risk assessment instrument prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders classified defendant as a presumptive level two risk, County Court granted the People’s request for an upward departure to a level three risk based on defendant’s alleged diagnosis of schizophrenia. That was error. Even if defendant in fact suffers from schizophrenia, “the record is devoid of evidence that the alleged mental illness is causally related to any risk of reoffense”… . Contrary to the People’s contention, the fact that defendant exhibits many symptoms of schizophrenia does not supply the necessary clear and convincing evidence that the disorder is causally related to an increased risk of future sex offending … . People v Robinson, 2018 NY Slip Op 02986, Fourth Dept 4-27-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT))/SCHIZOPHRENIA (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), SCHIZOPHRENIA DIAGNOSIS DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Cheerleader Assumed the Risk of Practicing with an Injured Teammate
Shooting Accomplished With Two Weapons Constituted a Single Continuing Offense/Indictment Not Duplicitous
DEFENDANT’S PRE-MIRANDA STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT THE GRAND JURY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD AN ARREST WARRANT, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE PROVED THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE PAROLE ABSCONDER WHEN THEY APPROACHED HIM, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE PURSUIT OF THE DEFENDANT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS WHO FIRST APPROACHED DEFENDANT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARREST WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
IN A TRIAL SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 5102 THE TERM “SERIOUS INJURY” NOT “INJURY” SHOULD BE USED ON THE VERDICT SHEET (FOURTH DEPT).
Storm in Progress Doctrine Warranted Summary Judgment to Defendant in Slip and Fall Case

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

THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST... LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CLAUSE IN NON-COMPETE COVENANT ENFORCEABLE, ATTORNEY’S...