You are here: / / PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT...
, ,

PROOF OF MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL CONTACT INSUFFICIENT; RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s risk assessment to level one, determined the proof of multiple instances of sexual contact was insufficient:

… [T]he People failed to meet their burden of proof with respect to risk factor 4. Although the People submitted evidence, in the form of the defendant’s statements, that he engaged in sexual contact with the victim on three or four occasions, they failed to submit any evidence as to when these instances of sexual contact occurred relative to one another, so as to demonstrate that such instances were separated in time by at least 24 hours, as the People claimed … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court should not have assessed 20 points under risk factor 4. People v Jarama, 2019 NY Slip Op 09044, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

You might also like
THE HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL WAS CHARGED WITH GIVING STUDENTS UNAUTHORIZED CREDITS TO INCREASE GRADUATION RATES; THE CHARGES REQUIRED INTENTIONAL CONDUCT; THE HEARING OFFICER DETERMINED THE PRINCIPAL DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY BUT WAS GUILTY OF THE CHARGES; THE INCONSISTENCY RENDERED THE RULING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Meruit
Appeal, Rather than a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment, Is the Proper Remedy Where a Party Appears to Contest Motion to Enter a Default Judgment
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
SERVICE OF CLAIM BY REGULAR MAIL VIOLATED COURT OF CLAIMS ACT SECTION 11, CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BUT A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED EXCESSIVE INTERVENTION BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a Foreclosure Action Did Not Prohibit, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, the Plaintiff’s Action to Be Declared the Owner of the Subject Property/A Person With an Interest in Real Property Who Is Not Joined in a Foreclosure Action Is Unaffected by the Judgment of Foreclosure

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PROOF OF GENERAL INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE... DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD...