You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL...
, , , ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing County Court and ordering a new SORA risk-level assessment, determined defendant’s attorney’s request for an adjournment to allow review of documents relevant to a downward departure should have been granted:

… County Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied the defendant’s request for an adjournment. The defendant’s open release date two days after the hearing was not a sufficient reason to deny the defendant’s request for an adjournment (see Correction Law § 168-l[8]). Further, the documents discussed by the defendant, including documents relating to his participation in treatment programs, may be relevant to support an application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of ‘(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the . . . Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence'” … . “In making the determinations the court shall review . . . any relevant materials and evidence submitted by the sex offender” … . “An offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional, can be the basis for a downward departure” … . As the documents cited by the defendant were potentially material, the adjournment request was not made for the purposes of delay, and the necessity of the request was not due to a failure of due diligence, the court should have granted the request to adjourn the SORA hearing so that the defendant’s counsel could review the documents and determine whether they should be offered to the court as evidence at the hearing. People v Eldridge, 2024 NY Slip Op 05117, Second Dept 10-16-24

Practice Point: Here defense counsel’s request for an adjournment of the SORA risk-level proceeding to allow review of documents which may be relevant to a downward departure should have been granted. Defense counsel was not able to meet with the defendant until 15 minutes before the hearing, the request was not made to delay, and the fact that defendant had an upcoming open release date was not a sufficient reason to deny an adjournment.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INDICATED SHE DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL IN HER DEPOSITION, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FLOOR WAS WET FROM TRACKED IN SNOW AND DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC; THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION’S VICE PRESIDENT WAS LICENSED AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY, WHICH DID THE ELECTRICAL WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, WAS LICENSED DOESN’T MATTER; THE CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed
PLAINTIFF, AN HVAC WORKER, LEANED ON A PIPE RAILING AS HE WAITED FOR AN ELEVATOR TO TAKE HIM TO THE FLOOR WHERE HIS WORK SITE WAS; THE PIPE RAILING GAVE WAY AND PLAINTFF FELL FOUR OR FIVE FEET TO A CONCRETE SLAB; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY ANSWER THE COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (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

A NURSING HOME CAN BRING A PLENARY ACTION SOUNDING IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST... THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE BECAUSE THE NECESSARY BUSINESS...