You are here: / / COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S...
, ,

COUNTY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined County Court failed to make the required findings of fact for defendant’s request for a downward departure:

Defendant … argues that County Court erred in denying his request for a downward departure. Although the court did expressly deny this request in the order, it did not detail the factual findings in support of its conclusion. Thus, we are unable to ascertain the court’s reasoning for denying defendant’s request. Consequently, we reverse and remit for County Court to set forth its findings of fact for denying [*2]defendant’s request for a downward departure as required … . People v Harvey, 2022 NY Slip Op 01073, Third Dept 2-17-22

 

You might also like
Court Properly Accepted Partial Verdict and Sent the Jury Back to Continue Deliberations on the Remaining Count
FATHER PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE SEVERELY ABUSED ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME; DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE, WHICH USES THE TERM “PARENT,” THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE IS NOT LIMITED TO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION SUBMIT A SECOND VOTING-DISTRICT REDISTRICTING PLAN AFTER THE REJECTION OF THE FIRST (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE STRESS CAUSED BY INTERACTION WITH CLAIMANT’S SUPERVISOR AND CLAIMANT’S HEART ATTACK (THIRD DEPT). ​
Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY AND PERMISSION TO RELOCATE TO TEXAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Late Notice of Settlement of Negligence Action to Workers’ Compensation Carrier Did Not Preclude Court-Approval of Settlement Pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law
PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM... THE 3RD DEPARTMENT, JOINING THE 2ND, HOLDS THAT A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE...