You are here: / / PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED...
,

PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the People’s request for an upward departure in this SORA risk assessment proceeding should not have been granted:

An upward departure is permitted only if the court concludes, upon clear and convincing evidence, “that there exists an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . In determining whether an upward departure is permissible and, if permissible, appropriate, a SORA court must engage in a three-step inquiry. First, the court must determine whether the People have articulated, as a matter of law, a legitimate aggravating factor. Next, the court must determine whether the People have established, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the presence of that factor in the case before it. Upon the People’s satisfaction of these two requirements, an upward departure becomes discretionary. If, upon examining all of the circumstances relevant to the offender’s risk of reoffense and danger to the community, the court concludes that the presumptive risk level would result in an underassessment of the risk or danger of reoffense, it may upwardly depart … . If, however, the People do not satisfy the first two requirements, the court does not have the discretion to depart from the presumptive risk level… .

In this case, the People failed at the hearing to identify “an aggravating . . . factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . Specifically, the defendant’s abuse of trust within a family relationship is already adequately accounted for by the Guidelines … . People v Mota, 2018 NY Slip Op 06950, Second Dept 10-18-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) (PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING LEGAL MALPRACTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPONENT OF A TOWER CRANE WAS BEING HOISTED WHEN IT SWUNG TO THE SIDE AND PINNED PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT, A DOCTOR, USED A PORTION OF THE TWO-FAMILY HOUSE AS A STUDY OR HOME OFFICE, THE EXCLUSION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES FROM LIABILITY FOR SIDEWALK DEFECTS APPLIED; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Existence of Elevator Maintenance Contract Did Not Rule Out Duty of Care to Elevator User
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE CEILING THAT FELL ON PLAINTIFFS; THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE CONDITION (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

PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD... PAYOR OF VOLUNTARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS...