You are here: / / WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR...
,

WHERE THE RELEVANT OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED IN TWO COUNTIES, NO NEED FOR TWO SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined only one SORA risk assessment proceeding should have been held. Defendant had simultaneously pled guilty to crimes committed in two counties. All of the crimes were taken into consideration in the first SORA assessment proceeding:

Where, as here, a single RAI [risk assessment instrument] addressing all relevant conduct is prepared, the goal of assessing the risk posed by the offender is fulfilled by a single SORA adjudication. To hold otherwise — that is, to permit multiple risk level determinations based on conduct included in a single RAI — would result in redundant proceedings and constitute a waste of judicial resources. Here, for instance, once the Division of Criminal Justice Services was notified of the Richmond County SORA court’s determination, “it had the information it needed to serve SORA’s goal of ‘protect[ing] the public from’ this particular sex offender” … . Any further proceedings then became duplicative. People v Cook, 2017 NY Slip Op 02467, CtApp 3-30-17

 

You might also like
BENCH TRIAL JUDGE’S RESCINDING OF THE RULING DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD GIVE A SUMMATION IN THIS MISDEMEANOR CASE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL, RULING IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE THE MEANINGFUL ABILITY TO OBJECT (CT APP).
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.
RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE (CT APP).
FRYE HEARING PROPERLY ORDERED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DOUBLE HEARSAY ABOUT PRIOR THREAT TO KILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, ERROR HARMLESS (CT APP).
Triggering Event for the Statute of Limitations Re: a Challenge of the Termination of Section 8 Rent Subsidies Is the Sending of the So-Called T-3 Letter-Notification, Irrespective of Whether the Two Prior Required Letter-Notifications Were Sent
A CONTRACT (A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR “MOU”) WHICH PURPORTED TO BIND CURRENT AND FUTURE TOWN OFFICIALS TO A REZONING REQUEST FOR A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIOLATED THE “TERM LIMITS DOCTRINE” AND WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
DNA TEST RESULTS DEEMED TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY TRIGGERING DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE ANALYST(S) WITH FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE OF CRUCIAL STAGES OF THE ANALYSIS.
SORA Hearing—Insufficient Proof of Drug or Alcohol Abuse

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

TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CHARGED THE JURY WITH THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR EXCEPTION TO... DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 7, DEFENDANT...