You are here: / / ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY,...
,

ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY, BRINGING DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT FROM A LEVEL THREE TO A LEVEL TWO, THE APPELLATE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO COUNTY COURT TO CONSIDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHETHER AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS WARRANTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court after the appellate court reduced the risk assessment by 10 points because the People conceded the absence of forcible compulsion. Eliminating that 10 point assessment resulted in reducing defendant from a level three offender to a level two offender. The remittal was for the purpose of allowing County Court to consider an upward departure, which the court did not consider because defendant had been deemed a presumptive level three offender at the time of the SORA hearing:

Here, the People prevailed before the SORA court on their requested allocation of points under the RAI [risk assessment instrument] and risk level. When the Appellate Division reversed on the allocation of points and the risk level dropped accordingly, it remitted to allow the SORA court to consider a departure request for the first time. Defendant and our dissenting colleague object, contending that because this upward departure request was not made during the original SORA proceeding, the SORA court made no ruling “adverse” to the People, and the Appellate Division therefore could not “review” this “unpreserved” departure question and order remittal upon reversal. But this argument confuses the question of whether remittal was appropriate corrective action with a question of preservation … . This is not a case in which a party failed to present an issue to the SORA court and then asked the Appellate Division to nonetheless resolve that same question; the Appellate Division did not rule on the merits of the departure but remitted it for the SORA court to do so in the first instance … . * * *

Curbing the Appellate Division’s power to remit for consideration of departure requests when it disagrees with the hearing court’s point assessment and changes an offender’s presumptive risk level would undermine SORA’s objective and unduly constrain the Appellate Division’s authority to order appropriate remedial action.  People v Weber, 2023 NY Slip Op 03301, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here in this SORA risk level proceeding, the appellate division appropriately remitted the matter to County Court to determine whether an upward departure was warranted. The appellate division had found a risk factor did not apply, reducing defendant’s risk level from three to two. County Court had not considered an upward departure in the original SORA proceeding because defendant’s presumptive risk level was already level three.

 

You might also like
SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (CT APP).
Error in Grand Jury Presentation Did Not Raise a Question of Prejudice Sufficient to Justify Dismissal of the Indictment
Damage to Building Caused By Excavation Next Door Constituted “Vandalism”
Charging the Defendant with the Use of Two Weapons During a Single Incident Did Not Render the Indictment Duplicitous—Only Proof of the Use of One Weapon Was Required
THE TRAFFIC STOP OF A BICYCLIST IS A SEIZURE REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR PROBABLE CAUSE DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE ROAD (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, ETC.); HERE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE GUN SEIZED FROM HIM AFTER THE STOP SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
FOR-PROFIT NURSING HOMES’ CHALLENGE TO ADJUSTED MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATES REJECTED (CT APP).
NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT WITH A CANADIAN COMPANY WHICH CALLED FOR THE CONTRACT TO BE ‘ENFORCED’ ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW, ONTARIO’S TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED THE ACTION UNTIMELY (CT APP).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

EVEN THOUGH THE SORA RISK LEVEL CAME OUT THE SAME (115 POINTS), THE JUDGE SHOULD... THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AND THE RELATED SENTENCES...