You are here: / / SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT...
, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk level assessment, determined defendant should have been given the opportunity to contest the grounds for an upward department not raised by the People:

A “SORA court deprive[s a] defendant of those basic procedural guarantees when it upwardly depart[s] from the presumptive risk level without affording [the] defendant notice or an opportunity to contest the basis for the departure” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in basing its decision to depart from the presumptive risk level, in part, upon grounds that were not raised by the People and of which the defendant had no notice or an opportunity to contest ,,, , People v Cutting, 2023 NY Slip Op 05524, Second Dept 11-1-23

Practice Point: A SORA risk-level assessment cannot be based on grounds of which the defendant was not given notice or the opportunity to contest.

 

You might also like
Concept of an Equitable Mortgage Explained, Affirmative Defenses Left Out of Original Answer (Waived) Can Be Included in Amended Answer
Causes of Action Seeking Monetary Damages Were Not Incidental to the Article 78 Causes of Action and, Therefore, Were Not Subject to the Four-Month Statute of Limitations
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S INDEMNIFICATION ACTION AGAINST A SUBCONTRACTOR BECAUSE THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAD BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S EMPLOYEES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE; DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ATTEMPT TO LAY FOUNDATIONS FOR THE ADMISSION OF POLICE AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUSINESS RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF HIS INTOXICATION DEFENSE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EXPERT TESTIMONY ON CHILD PSYCHOLOGY AND... THE CRITERIA FOR “A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL CONTACT” WERE NOT...