You are here: / / THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF...
, ,

THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The First Department, remitting the matter, determined the judge did not make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law when designating the defendant’s risk level under SORA:

In designating a sex offender’s risk level under SORA, “[t]he court shall render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]). Here, the court’s statement at the conclusion of the hearing “did not adequately set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it based its decision” to assess the points at issue on appeal and deny defendant’s motion for a downward departure … . Instead, the court simply stated: “The People have met their burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that 135 points were properly assessed, which corresponds to a Level 3 sex offender designation. The motion for downward departure is denied.” The court’s written order repeated those statements. Therefore, we remand the matter to Supreme Court “to specify the required findings and conclusions, based on the evidence already introduced” … . People v Tolliver, 2025 NY Slip Op 00489, First Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: A judge’s designation of a defendant’s SORA risk level must be supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON WHETHER THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER OR A TENANT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
A SETTLEMENT EMAIL WILL BE DEEMED SIGNED BY THE SENDING ATTORNEY WITHOUT RETYPING THE ATTORNEY’S NAME IN THE EMAIL (FIRST DEPT).
Term “Entrustment” in a Policy Exclusion (In the Context of Entrustment of Property to Another) Interpreted to Encompass Entire Leased Premises
No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant Aware of Alleged Door-Lock Defect
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
JOURNALIST WHO INTERVIEWED DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN DEFENDANT’S MURDER TRIAL.
BUILDING OWNER NOT LIABLE FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO ENSURE A SMOKE DETECTOR WAS FUNCTIONAL, DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THE OWNER REGULARLY INSPECTED THE SMOKE DETECTORS (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO SEEK A DNA TEST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION PROPERLY GRANTED.

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

HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE... DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND PROOF...