You are here: / / DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE WAS APPROPRIATE; DEFENDANT...
,

DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM LEVEL TWO TO LEVEL ONE WAS APPROPRIATE; DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN THE SEX TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY WHILE SHE HERSELF WAS A VICTIM OF SEX TRAFFICKING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, lowering defendant’s risk assessment from a lever two to level one, determined that defendant was herself a victim of sex trafficking and her participation in the conspiracy occurred at the same time that she was being exploited:

… [T]he circumstances identified and proven by the defendant … are not accounted for by the SORA Guidelines and tend to demonstrate a lower likelihood of reoffense and danger to the community. The defendant’s evidence showed that she was exploited by the commercial sex industry when she was a minor, and that, while she later took on some “management” responsibilities by “training” other girls, answering phones, and making appointments, at the same time, she continued to be exploited by that industry as she simultaneously served as a sex worker. There was no evidence or indication that the defendant recruited the identified victim, or any victims, or that she engaged in any acts or conduct to coerce the victim, or any victims, to engage in prostitution … . Indeed, the defendant’s level of responsibility in the sex trafficking conspiracy can be gauged by the federal sentencing court’s decision to sentence the defendant to time served.

Finally, under these circumstances, we find that a departure to a level one risk designation is warranted as a matter of discretion “to avoid an [overassessment] of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Snyder, 2019 NY Slip Op 06521, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

You might also like
Cause of Action for Breach of “Sharing Assets” Agreement Entered Into During an 18-Year “Committed Same-Sex Relationship” Reinstated
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT PASS TO THE FOREIGN (DELAWARE) CORPORATION AFTER A MERGER AND ACQUISITION OF NEW YORK BUSINESS ENTITIES; THEREFORE THE NEW YORK PARTIES, IN THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THEM IN THE TRANSACTION, CAN SEEK ACCESS TO THE ATTORNEYS’ PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Disclosure of Sexual Abuse One Year After Abuse Ended Properly Admitted Under the “Prompt Outcry” Exception to the Hearsay Rule
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 WAS DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, THE ORDER WAS SELF-PRESERVED AND APPEALABLE; THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215, DESPITE THE MOTION COURT’S REJECTION OF THE ORDER AS INCOMPLETE (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FRAMING COMPANY HIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND GIVEN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK WAS LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A “STATUTORY AGENT” OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Reverse-Batson Challenge to the Peremptory Challenge of a White Woman by Defense Counsel Properly Sustained/Judge’s Failure to Inform and Seek the Input of the Parties Re: a Jury Note Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal
ONE INCH DEEP DEPRESSION IN THE ROADWAY WHICH WAS SURROUNDED BY ORANGE MARKINGS WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRIVIAL OR BOTH ‘OPEN AND OBVIOUS’ AND ‘NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS’ AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF THE CAUSES... PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION...