You are here: / / A SORA COURT JUDGE HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO, SUA SPONTE, REOPEN A SORA...
, ,

A SORA COURT JUDGE HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO, SUA SPONTE, REOPEN A SORA HEARING TO CORRECT AN ERROR (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dowling, joining the First and Fourth Departments, determined a judge has the authority to, sua sponte, reopen a SORA hearing to correct a mistake:

​Given the Supreme Court’s error, and considering the inherent power of a court to reconsider its own intermediate determinations, together with the overriding purposes and objectives of SORA, we find no wrong in the Supreme Court’s sua sponte correction of its initial failure to assess points under risk factors 3 and 5. There is no benefit to a defendant, the People, or the public in prohibiting a SORA court tasked with determining an offender’s presumptive risk level from, sua sponte, correcting its own erroneous determination … . People v Allen, 2026 NY Slip Op 04880, Second Dept 8-5-26

 

You might also like
Criteria for Arbitrability of Dispute Involving Public Employees Succinctly Explained
Question of Fact Whether Licensed Driver Properly Supervised Young Driver with a Learner’s Permit
IF THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD FINDS A DEFENDANT IN A CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS RESTRICTED TO WORKER’S COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CANNOT MAINTAIN ACTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST THAT EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).
Police Accident Report Did Not Notify City of Negligence on the Part of the City—Petition to Serve Late Notice of Claim Properly Denied
A “HIGH COST LOAN” AS DEFINED BY THE BANKING LAW IS A DEFENSE TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE, PETITION ALLEGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
FRYE HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER “OTHER UNSPECIFIED PARAPHILIC” DISORDER IS A DIAGNOSIS WHICH IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
EVEN AN INNOCENT MATERIAL MISTAKE ON AN INSURANCE APPLICATION RENDERS THE POLICY UNENFORCEABLE.

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

ONCE THE PARTIES ENTERED A STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE, SUPREME COURT WAS... HERE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS STRICKEN FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS; AT THE...