You are here: / / DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK...
,

DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, PETITION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Rivera, considering a question of first impression, determined a defendant can appeal, as of right, the denial of a petition to modify a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk classification. The Second Department further held that the petition was properly denied, in large part because defendant, who was 71 years old and in poor health, did not participate in any sex offender treatment programs and did not accept responsibility for his sex offenses:

… [N]othing in the language of Correction Law § 168-o(2) precludes this Court’s exercise of its broad authority and jurisdiction to entertain and decide the instant appeal. In the context of SORA, we have long recognized the significant impact upon the defendant’s liberty interest. Furthermore, we are cognizant of the ongoing responsibility and crucial importance in maintaining a balance between the procedural safeguards afforded to the defendant and the societal interests involved in protecting “the public from sex offenders” … . … [W]e hold that a sex offender may appeal from an order denying a petition for a downward modification of his risk level. People v Charles, 2018 NY Slip Op 03864, Second Dept 5-30-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, IN THIS CASE THE PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (APPEALS, DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, IN THIS CASE THE PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), APPEALS, DENIAL OF A PETITION TO MODIFY A SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK ASSESSMENT IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT, IN THIS CASE THE PETITION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
SEVEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN ARREST AND INDICTMENT DID NOT VIOLATE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL.
THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
​DEFENDANTS IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WERE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF GEOGRAPHICAL DATA (SPEED, LOCATION) RECORDED ON PLAINTIFF’S CELL PHONE DURING A THREE-HOUR PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
HUSBAND ENTITLED TO ONLY FIVE PERCENT OF WIFE’S ENHANCED EARNING CAPACITY FROM WIFE’S MASTER’S DEGREE OBTAINED DURING MARRIAGE.
THERE WAS A SURPLUS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY; DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT WITH CITIBANK; CITIBANK, NOT DEFENDANT, WAS ENTITLED TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
A LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ABSENT GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST 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

DEFENDANT WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ACTION BUT HAD SINCE MOVED TO SOUTH CAROLINA... STATEMENTS POSTED ON FACEBOOK CONCERNING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED PARTIAL...