You are here: / Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
,

Criteria for (Upward) Departure from the Risk Level Assessed by the Board of Sex Offenders Explained

The First Department determined the SORA court properly departed from the recommendation by the Board of Sex Offenders (the Board) that defendant be assessed a level one sex offender.  The defendant had communicated in an Internet chat room with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl. Upward departure (to level two) was deemed warranted because, although there was no actual victim, the defendant’s behavior indicated he posed a risk to young girls and might re-offend. The court explained when departure from the Board’s recommendation is warranted:

The court concluded that the Board’s allocation to defendant of risk level one was inadequate and determined him to be a risk level two. The court stated, in relevant part:

“I don’t think this level would be appropriate for somebody who might re-engage in this conduct because the next person that he’s in contact with could very well be a real child and that person would be victimized, and I don’t think that this qualifies under the lowest level. This is not like one single, you know, inadvertent contact with somebody. This is a relationship that he attempted to develop, and as if over the period of days he got more and more explicit, counsel, indicated to her what he wanted to do, all the while thinking she’s a 13 year-old girl. I don’t believe that this risk score or the Board’s recommendation accurately reflects even the risk of his re-offending, counsel, or the harm that would be caused if he did re-offend, which are the two factors that the court is supposed to weigh in assessing his risk.” …

Although the Board’s assessment of a risk level is presumed to be correct, the reviewing court is to consider it as only a recommendation from which it, as an exercise of its discretion, can depart if there is clear and convincing evidence that a departure is warranted (…Correction Law 168-n[3]). The court’s analysis is not limited to tallying up points it believes the Board did not assess; rather, the court can adjust the risk level upwards if it determines that there are “aggravating factors not adequately accounted for in the [RAI]” … . This rule derives from the Board’s “Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary,” (the Guidelines), which note that “an objective instrument, no matter how well designed, will not fully capture the nuances of every case. Not to allow for departures would, therefore, deprive the Board or a court of the ability to exercise sound judgment and to apply its expertise to the offender” … . Conversely, as noted, the Board’s determinations are presumptive, and not to be routinely overturned … .  People v Macchia, 2015 NY Slip Op 01883, 1st Dept 3-10-15

 

 

, , ,

Local Law Imposing Residency Restrictions Upon a Level One Sex Offender Who Was No Longer Subject to State Sex-Offender Residency Restrictions Preempted by Implication—The Body of State Law Regulating Sex Offenders Evinced the State’s Intent to “Occupy the Field”

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that a Nassau County Local Law which prohibited registered sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school was preempted by the body of state law regulating the residency of sex offenders.  In this case, the defendant was adjudicated a level one sex offender (the lowest level of “danger” to the community) and had been discharged from parole.  The state sex-offender residency restrictions no longer applied to him. The Court of Appeals held that the body of law enacted by the state in this area, by implication, evinced an intent to “occupy the field” and therefore local governments did not have the power to enact their own sex-offender residency laws:

Although a local government is constitutionally empowered to enact local laws relating to the welfare of its citizens through its police power, it is prohibited from exercising that power through the adoption of local laws that are inconsistent with the New York State Constitution or any general law of the State (see NY Const, art IX, § 2 [c]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 [1] [i]; [ii] [1] [a] [12]). This doctrine of preemption is a significant restriction on a local government’s home rule powers because although localities are “invested with substantial powers both by affirmative grant and by restriction on State powers in matters of local concern, the overriding limitation of the preemption doctrine embodies ‘the untrammeled primacy of the Legislature to act . . . with respect to matters of State concern'” … . * * *

The doctrine of field preemption prohibits a municipality from exercising a police power “when the Legislature has restricted such an exercise by preempting the area of regulation” … . Although field preemption may be “express” as evidenced by the Legislature’s stated directive, it may also “be implied from a declaration of State policy by the Legislature . . . or from the fact that the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular area” … . Intent to preempt the field may “be implied from the nature of the subject matter being regulated and the purpose and scope of the State legislative scheme, including the need for State-wide uniformity in a given area” … . * * *

The defendant in this appeal is a designated level one sex offender, is not on probation or parole, nor is he subject to conditional release or PRS. None of the [state] provisions that even touch upon residency or placement apply to him. …[T]hat does not mean that the State has delegated to local governments the duty of enacting residency laws concerning registered sex offenders. Nor does it mean … that “the Legislature has chosen to limit its regulations over sex offenders and not to enact a comprehensive legislative scheme in the area concerning the residency restrictions of sex offenders who are not on parole, probation, subject to conditional discharge or seeking public assistance” … . Rather, it is clear that the State has been continuously active in this field and, as such, it is evident that the State has chosen to occupy it. People v Diack, 2015 NY Slip Op 01376, CtApp 2-17-15

 

,

SORA Court Must Designate a “Sexually Violent Offender” a Level One Sex Offender

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a dissent, determined that the SORA court does not have the discretion to designate a “sexually violent offender” as anything other than a Level One sex offender.  Here the defendant was convicted of sexual battery in North Carolina.  The North Carolina offense was found to be the equivalent of New York’s Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a “sexually violent offense” under Correction Law 168-a (3) (a):

“While [the] Court is directed to apply SORA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines . . ., the statutory definition of sexually violent offender, namely, a sex offender convicted of one of several enumerated sexually violent offenses, does not allow for a discretionary determination” … . Thus, although the “level suggested by the RAI [risk assessment instrument] is merely presumptive and a SORA court possesses the discretion to impose a lower or higher risk level if it concludes that the factors in the RAI do not result in an appropriate designation” …, the Court of Appeals has observed that “since 2002, SORA has compelled a defendant convicted of a sexually violent offense’ to register at least annually for life (Correction Law § 168-h [2]; see Correction Law § 168-a [3][a][7]; [b]; L 2002, ch 11, § 13). People v Bullock, 2014 NY Slip Op 08265, 1st Dept 11-25-14

 

,

SORA Point Assessments Affirmed Over Two-Justice Dissent Arguing the Proof of Online Sexual Conduct Was Insufficient, the Evidence of “Grooming” the Victims Was Insufficient, and the Social Immaturity of the Defendant Should Have Been Considered as a Mitigating Factor

The Third Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the points assessed by County Court in a SORA proceeding were appropriate.  The charges were based entirely upon online communication between the defendant and three underage girls.  The decision is notable for the extensive dissent which found the evidence defendant had masturbated during online communication through a webcam, and the evidence that the defendant engaged in “grooming” the victims was insufficient, and further found that certain mitigating factors, including that defendant functioned socially at the level of a young teenager, should have been considered:

FROM THE DISSENT:

Here, the record lacks clear and convincing proof of prohibited sexual conduct with the third victim referenced in the indictment — as to whom defendant pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and aggravated harassment in the second degree. During the plea allocution, defendant admitted that he had engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with this victim, and the victim testified before the grand jury that defendant had contacted her by webcam video, during which time he touched himself in the area of his genitals, over his clothing. There was no physical sexual contact between the two at any time. As defendant argues, the grand jury testimony included too little factual detail to constitute clear and convincing evidence that he was masturbating. Although this might be inferred, it was not clearly revealed; viewed objectively, the testimony demonstrates nothing more than a brief swipe of defendant’s hand in his genital region, accompanied by innuendo. Our precedent establishes a significantly higher standard of misconduct … .

We further find that the record supports defendant’s contention that he was improperly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7 because his conduct was not “directed at a stranger or a person with whom a relationship had been established or promoted for the primary purpose of victimization” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 12 [2006]). The majority accepts County Court’s finding that defendant and the victims were not “strangers,” but that defendant had engaged in “grooming” behavior; we disagree. An example of grooming behavior provided in the guidelines is that of a scout leader who chose the position in order to gain access to his victims (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 12 [2006]). As defendant argues, the record does not establish this type of calculated behavior on his part, nor was there a showing of emotional manipulation, undue influence or other customary indicia of grooming conduct. People v Izzo, 2014 NY 05679, 3rd Dept 8-7-14

 

,

A SORA Assessment in a Child Pornography Case Can Take Into Account Whether the Depicted Children Were Strangers to the Defendant (Factor 3) and the Number of Children Depicted (Factor 7)—-The Standard of Proof for a Defendant’s Application for a Downward Departure from the SORA Guidelines is “A Preponderance of the Evidence”

In a full-fledged, detailed and extensive opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over dissents, the Court of Appeals determined that factors 3 and 7 of an assessment under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) applied to child pornography cases.  Factor 7 allows the assessment of points where the victim of a sex offense is a stranger to the defendant, and factor 3 allows the assessments of points based on the number of victims.  In the context of child pornography, therefore, the images of children the defendant does not know and the number of children depicted in the images, i.e., the number of victims, can be taken into account in determining a defendant's SORA score.  The Court of Appeals also settled a difference among the appellate divisions by setting “a preponderance of the evidence” as the standard for the defendant's evidence submitted in support of a downward departure from the guidelines:

Given that child pornography offenders substantially harm the mental health of abused children and, via the consumption of child pornography, encourage others to commit the hands-on sexual abuse needed to produce that material, it is difficult to credit defendants' claims that, due to their failure to personally physically abuse children, the risk of harm caused by their offenses should not be accounted for in the manner authorized by the plain language of factors 3 and 7. Although those aggravating factors may not represent the exact same risks in child pornography cases as in those involving physical contact, the presence of those factors in child pornography cases increases the offender's potential to psychologically harm a greater number of children to a greater degree. The guidelines may account for the variable risk that certain child pornography offenders who have an unusually strong compulsion to consume and distribute child pornography will provide exceptional support to an illicit trade that physically and psychologically harms children. People v Gillotti, 2014 NY Slip Op 04117, CtApp 6-10-14

 

,

Case Summary by Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and Sworn Felony Complaint Constitute Clear and Convincing Evidence in a SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined the case summary provided by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the sworn felony complaint provided clear and convincing evidence of continuing sexual misconduct against the victim:

In establishing a defendant’s risk level pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) (see Correction Law art 6-C), the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts supporting the determinations sought (see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]…). ” In assessing points, evidence may be derived from . . . the victim’s statements, evaluative reports completed by the supervising probation officer, parole officer, or corrections counselor, case summaries prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders . . . or any other reliable source, including reliable hearsay'” … .

Here, the case summary and the sworn felony complaint constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n[3]…)  and provided clear and convincing evidence to warrant the assessment of 20 points under risk factor four, for engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct against the victim … .  People v Patronick, 2014 NY Slip Op 03816, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Evidence Defendant Had Victimized Other Children Justified Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined that clear and convincing evidence defendant had victimized other children justified an upward departure in the SORA proceeding:

…[T]he court’s classification of the defendant as a level three sex offender was justified. The People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had engaged in sexual misconduct with children other than the child whose victimization led to the defendant’s conviction. This constituted aggravating factors of a kind not otherwise taken into account by the guidelines that warranted an upward departure to level three … . People v DeJesus, 2014 NY Slip Op 03815, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Quantity and Nature of Child Pornography Warranted an Upward Departure in a SORA Proceeding

The Second Department determined the quantity and nature of the child pornography in defendant’s possession warranted an upward departure in a SORA proceeding:

…[I]n light of the large quantity of child pornography recovered from the defendant’s possession and the nature of that material, which included, among other things, images and videos depicting the torture of children, the County Court properly determined that there were aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the SORA guidelines … . Upon making such a determination, the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People’s application for an upward departure from the presumptive sex offender risk level … . People v Rotunno, 2014 NY Slip Op 03817, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

,

Response to Sex Offender Treatment Program Must Be “Exceptional” to Warrant Downward Departure (SORA)

The Second Department noted that defendant did not present sufficient support for a downward departure based upon his participation in a sex offender treatment program because the defendant did not establish his response to treatment was “exceptional.” People v Tisman, 2014 NY Slip Op 02913, 2nd Detp 4-30-14

 

,

Remote Drug-Related Convictions and a Single DWAI Not Enough to Assess Points (in a SORA Proceeding) for Substance Abuse

The Third Department determined points for substance abuse should not have veen assessed against the defendant in a SORA proceeding:

Here, there is no indication on this record that either drugs or alcohol played a role in the offense at issue herein or in defendant’s prior sex offense. County Court relied on defendant’s 1992 convictions for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired. However, in our view these widely spaced incidents are not of the nature or degree to establish a pattern of drug or alcohol use by clear and convincing evidence (see Correction Law § 168-l [5] [a] [ii]…). The 1992 convictions, as well as other information relied upon in the case summary pertaining to defendant’s drug and/or alcohol use at that time, are excessively remote …, and his 2002 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree does not prove drug use …, leaving his 2009 conviction for driving while ability impaired as the sole evidence of defendant’s substance abuse within the past 20 years … . People v Ross, 2014 NY Slip Op 02472, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

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