You are here: / / THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT,...
,

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, ASSESSED 12 POINTS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY; DEFENDANT ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, without prior notice to the defendant, assessed 12 points for failure to accept responsibility in this SORA risk level proceeding. The Fourth Department noted defendant pled guilty to statutory rape. Although defendant stated he thought the 16-year-old victim was 18, the guilty plea was an adequate acceptance of responsibility:

… [I]t is well established that ” ‘[a] defendant has both a statutory and constitutional right to notice of points sought to be assigned to him or her so as to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to that assessment’ ” … . As a result, “a court’s sua sponte departure from the Board’s recommendation at the hearing, without prior notice, deprives the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to respond” … . …

… [T]he court erred in assessing him 10 points under risk factor 12, for failure to accept responsibility, given that he pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt … . …

… [D]efendant was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to argue against the override [recommended by the board] or in favor of a downward departure … . People v Ritchie, 2022 NY Slip Op 01635, Fourth Dept 3-10-22

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, the judge cannot, sua sponte, without notice to the defendant, assess points in a category not recommended by the board.

Practice Point: In a SORA risk assessment proceeding, where a defendant has pled guilty, an assessment of 12 points for failure to accept responsibility is not warranted.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY’S FEE WAS UNCONSCIONABLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD INITIALLY CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S FIRM PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
Okay to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Medical Reports Linking Injury to Lead Paint or Be Precluded from Introducing Such Evidence
PLAINTIFF’S HUSBAND, THE INSURED, WAS DRIVING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO SHOW HER HUSBAND HAD REQUESTED COVERAGE ON HER BEHALF AND, BECAUSE THE INSURER (ALLEGEDLY) NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO COVER HER LOSS, DESPITE HER STATUS AS A NONCLIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES IS APPEALABLE; DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING THE CPLR ARTICLE 16 DEFENSES ATTRIBUTING LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TO NON-PARTIES (FOURTH DEPT).
RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR FROM LIABILITY STEMMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARY WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE, AND THE EFFECTS OF LEAVING A TRUST UNFUNDED, SURROGATE’S COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE RELEASE WAS INVALID ON THE BENEFICIARY (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH 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

ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS IN JAPAN, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE... DEFENDANT NEVER PHYSICALLY POSSESSED THE NOTE UNDERLYING THE MORTGAGE AND WAS...