You are here: / / HERE THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TEN-DAY’S NOTICE THEY...
, ,

HERE THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TEN-DAY’S NOTICE THEY WERE SEEKING A HIGHER SORA RISK LEVEL THAN THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD WARRANTED A REDUCTION FROM LEVEL THREE TO TWO; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REPLY TO THE LATE NOTICE DID NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reducing defendant’s SORA risk level from three to two, determined (1) the defendant was not given the requisite 10-day notice of the prosecutor’s intent to seek a higher risk level than that recommended by the Board, and (2) defense counsel’s reply to the late notice by the prosecutor did not waive the 10-day notice requirement:

We agree with defendant that he was denied due process because the People did not provide written notice of its intent to seek a determination different than that recommended by the Board “at least ten days prior to the determination proceeding” (Correction Law § 168-n[3] …). The People sent defense counsel a letter stating their intent to seek a risk level three adjudication, different from the Board’s recommendation of risk level two, less than 10 days in advance of the hearing. … [T]he People indicated in their letter only that they were seeking additional point assessments and did not apprise counsel that they were also requesting an upward departure … . … [T]he People announced their intention to seek an upward departure for the first time at the court’s invitation during the SORA hearing.

Defendant’s right to timely notice was not waived by his counsel’s letter, in response to the People’s, that counsel was willing to go forward with the hearing if the prosecutor delivered to counsel by the next day the evidence that the People intended to use at the hearing. Nothing in the record indicates that the prosecutor complied with this condition. Moreover, because the People did not announce an intention to seek an upward departure, any waiver would not have embraced that request. People v Tookes, 2024 NY Slip Op 03095, First Dept 6-6-24

Practice Point: The People must provide defendant ten-day’s notice of their intent to seek a higher SORA risk level than that recommended by the Board.

Practice Point: The People should not wait until the SORA hearing to announce they are seeking an upward departure.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).
THE DISMISSAL OF TWO FEDERAL LAWSUITS AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHOOL (ALLEGING SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFFS-STUDENTS) ON STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS GROUNDS DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A “VESTED RIGHT” REQUIRING THE DISMISSAL OF THE STATE ACTION UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SAME FACTS (FIRST DEPT).
CHARACTER IN A MOVIE BASED UPON A SHORT STORY WAS IDENTIFIABLE AS PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE MAKERS OF THE MOVIE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF THAT THE SUBWAY TRACKS WERE USED AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband
IN THIS SUIT BY A NEW JERSEY CASINO TO RECOVER DEFENDANT’S GAMBLING DEBT, DEFENDANT RAISED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ALLEGING PLAINTIFF CASINO VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY’S CASINO CONTROL ACT (CCA); THE CONTROLLING AGENCY, THE CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION (CCC), HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THOSE COMPLAINTS; THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE RULED ON BEFORE THE COURT CAN CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE DAILY BEAST REPORTERS WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT GAWKER VIOLATED THE “GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY STANDARD” IN MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF; THE DEFAMATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Managing Member Breached Fiduciary Duty Owed to Nonmanaging Member with Respect to Managing Member’s Alleged Reliance Upon an Outside Professional

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

WHEN A PRIOR MOTION HAS BEEN DENIED ON PROCEDURAL GOUNDS “WITHOUT PREJUDICE... CLAIMANT INITIALLY BELIEVED THE ROAD WHERE HE STEPPED IN A POTHOLE AND FELL...