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

THE CRITERIA FOR “A CONTINUING COURSE OF SEXUAL CONTACT” WERE NOT MET; DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reducing defendant’s SORA risk-level assessment to level one, determined the People did not demonstrate “a continuing course of sexual contact:“

The Guidelines provide, in part, regarding risk factor 4, that “an offender has engaged in a continuing course of sexual contact when he [or she] engages in either (i) two or more acts of sexual contact, at least one of which is an act of sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct, anal sexual conduct, or aggravated sexual contact, which acts are separated in time by at least 24 hours, or (ii) three or more acts of sexual contact over a period of at least two weeks” … .

In this proceeding, the People failed to meet their burden of proof on risk factor 4 since they failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the two acts of sexual contact the defendant committed against the victim were separated in time by at least 24 hours … . People v Parez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05526, Second Dept 11-1-23

Practice Point: There must be 24 hours between acts of sexual contact to constitute “a continuing course of sexual contact” under the SORA risk-level guidelines; not the case here.

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk level assessment, determined defendant should have been given the opportunity to contest the grounds for an upward department not raised by the People:

A “SORA court deprive[s a] defendant of those basic procedural guarantees when it upwardly depart[s] from the presumptive risk level without affording [the] defendant notice or an opportunity to contest the basis for the departure” … .

Here, the Supreme Court erred in basing its decision to depart from the presumptive risk level, in part, upon grounds that were not raised by the People and of which the defendant had no notice or an opportunity to contest ,,, , People v Cutting, 2023 NY Slip Op 05524, Second Dept 11-1-23

Practice Point: A SORA risk-level assessment cannot be based on grounds of which the defendant was not given notice or the opportunity to contest.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) County Court, determined defendant was not given notice of some of the grounds County Court relied upon for an upward departure re: defendant’s SORA risk-level assessment. That constituted a violation of defendant’s right to due process:

While … defendant [was] on notice that his persistent sexually-motivated criminal conduct would be relied upon by the People as a factor for upward departure, there is no similar indication that his concurrent conviction for failure to register along with the facts underlying his juvenile delinquency adjudication would be considered … . … “[D]efendant was entitled to a sufficient opportunity to consider and muster evidence in opposition to the request for an upward departure” on the specific bases upon which the People, and consequently County Court, would rely in considering that relief … . … [T]the matter must be remanded for a new hearing, upon proper notice to defendant of the justifications relied upon by the People specific to their request for such relief. People v Maurer, 2023 NY Slip Op 05290, Third Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Due process requires that a defendant be notified of all of the evidence which will be relied upon by the People and the court for a SORA risk assessment.

 

, , ,

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAIVED HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; RISK-ASSESSMENT REVERSED; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk assessment, determined the People did not demonstrate defendant had waived his due process right to be present at the hearing. Although the error was not preserved, the Second Department considered the appeal in the interest of justice:

A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing … . “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . Reliable hearsay evidence, such as an affidavit, is admissible to establish waiver … . Here, the record is silent as to whether the defendant received notice of the SORA hearing and there was no evidence, hearsay or otherwise, that the defendant expressed a desire to forego his presence at the hearing. People v Perez, 2023 NY Slip Op 05161, Second Dept 10-11-23

Practice Point: Although a defendant can waive the due process right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing, and the waiver can be proved by hearsay, here there was no evidence of a waiver and the risk assessment was reversed.

Practice Point: At issue here was defendant’s constitutional right to be present at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. Although the issue (his absence from the hearing) was not preserved, the appellate court considered the appeal in the interest of justice.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been assessed risk-factor points based on a theory which defendant was unable to respond to because it was raised for the first time at the SORA risk-assessment hearing. The matter was remanded:

… [T]he court should have found that the People acted improperly in raising, for the first time at the hearing, as the basis for scoring defendant 15 points for inflicting physical injury under risk factor 1, a new reason or theory that differed from the basis for that scoring specified in the Board’s case summary and in the People’s prehearing submissions. This deprived defendant of the proper advance, informative notice of “the reasons” and “basis” for the People seeking the 15-point determination to which he was entitled under Correction Law § 168-n (3) and due process, so as to afford him a meaningful opportunity to respond to the assessment … People v Jackson, 2023 NY Slip Op 05043, First Dept 10-5-23

Practice Point: If the People present a new risk-assessment theory at the SORA hearing, the court must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to respond before issuing a ruling.

 

, ,

EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined 15 points should not have been assessed against the defendant under SORA for drug abuse. The evidence was too weak:

Here, we conclude that the People failed to prove by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse. Although the case summary presented by the People at the SORA hearing establishes that defendant was convicted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) of possessing an unknown amount of testosterone and using an anabolic steroid … , which offense occurred nearly one year after the underlying sex offense of sexual abuse of a child … , there is “no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues” and ” ‘only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug . . . abuse’ ” … . Indeed, the sole information in the record regarding defendant’s purported history of drug abuse is the “conclusory hearsay” statement … of a correctional treatment specialist—here, a licensed marriage and family therapist—who commented in the updated treatment assessment he prepared prior to defendant’s release from incarceration that defendant had “substance abuse problems with steroids pre-confinement” but that confinement had “cleaned . . . up” that problem such that defendant now understood “the repercussions of that type of abuse.” Inasmuch as the only evidence that defendant abused steroids consists of a ” ‘hearsay statement[] that [is] vague, . . . equivocal, and otherwise unsubstantiated,’ ” the People failed to establish by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that defendant had a history of substance abuse … . People v Currington, 2023 NY Slip Op 04874, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here the evidence purporting to demonstrate defendant had a history of drug abuse was deemed too weak to support the 15-point drug-abuse assessment under SORA.

 

,

THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE DEFENDANT DEVELOPED THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VICTIMIZING HER AND THEREFORE 20 POINTS WERE PROPERLY ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7; THE COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPLAINANT WHICH RENDERD RISK FACTOR 7 INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN COOK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined, over a comprehensive dissent, that defendant was properly assessed 20 points because his relationship with the 13-year-old victim was deemed to have been established for the primary purpose of victimizing her. The dissent argued there was a pre-existing relationship and, therefore, defendant did not develop the relationship for the purpose of victimization:

… [T]he record indicates that the defendant did not have a long-standing preexisting relationship with the complainant’s parents, and was not involved in the complainant’s life since her infancy. Rather, the defendant had worked with the complainant’s uncle and was invited to the uncle’s house for lunch, where he met the complainant. Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from the circumstances of Cook [29 NY3d at 121]. Contrary to the position of our dissenting colleague, the fact that the defendant’s initial contact with the complainant was unplanned and in person, rather than through the internet, is not determinative with respect to the assessment of points under risk factor 7 based on an offender’s establishment or promotion of a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization … . The Guidelines, which were created in 1996, do not limit the assessment of points under those circumstances to situations where the offender and the victim initially met online. People v Jony, 2023 NY Slip Op 04674, Second Dept 9-20-23

Practice Point: A long-standing relationship between a defendant and a victim of sexual abuse may demonstrate the relationship was not established for the primary purpose of victimization rendering the assessment of 20 points under risk factor 7 inapplicable. Here the majority concluded there was no such pre-existing relationship, but the dissent made a strong contrary argument.

 

 

, , , ,

THE SORA RISK-LEVEL MOTION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RE-OPENED THE HEARING TO AMEND ITS ORIGINAL RISK-LEVEL DETERMINATION; THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET; THE “INHERENT AUTHORITY” TO RE-OPEN APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE ORIGINAL RULING WAS BASED ON A MISTAKE; THE PEOPLE WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the SORA court should not have reopened the SORA risk-level hearing to amend its prior risk-level ruling. The criteria for a motion to renew were not met and the other justifications for re-opening the hearing were not applicable:

… [T]here are three ways in which a court could amend its SORA determination…. First, a party may move for leave to renew. A court may grant a motion for leave to renew only where (1) the motion alleges new facts and (2) the movant provides reasonable justification for not offering those facts in the original proceedings (CPLR 2221[e][2], [3]; …). The court has discretion to determine what constitutes a reasonable justification … and to relax the requirements of CPLR 2221(e) in the interest of justice … . * * *

Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing “to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact” on a SORA decision … . This inherent authority stems from the “overriding purposes and objectives of SORA” to, inter alia, “protect [] vulnerable populations and . . . the public from potential harm” …. .

Here, the motion court could not have acted based on its inherent authority because the motion court did not make a mistake in its initial decision … . * * *

Third, a new hearing can be ordered to give the People an opportunity to make an application for an upward modification where the People refrained from making that argument when the motion court assessed points which resulted in the defendant being assigned presumptively to the level sought by the People … . * * *

Here, the motion court properly gave the People time to respond to defendant’s assertions and the People chose to introduce the new materials only belatedly.  People v Adams, 2023 NY Slip Op 04490, First Dept 9-7-23

Practice Point: The three ways a SORA motion court can amend a risk-level determination are described in detail. None were applicable here.

 

, ,

THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS AS APPLIED TO SEX OFFENDERS CONVICTED BEFORE THE STATUTE WENT INTO EFFECT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE; HERE PETITIONER WAS INCARCERATED PAST HIS PAROLE DATE BECAUSE HOUSING WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE SCHOOL GROUNDS LAW COULD NOT BE FOUND (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, three judges dissenting, determined the statute (Executive Law 259-c [14]) prohibiting sex offenders from being within 1000 feet of school grounds as applied to sex offenders who were convicted before the statute went into effect does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution. Here the application of the statute resulted in petitioner remaining incarcerated past his parole release date because housing which met the school-grounds requirement could not be found:

The United States Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits states from “retroactively alter[ing] the definition of crimes or increas[ing] the punishment for criminal acts” … . The ex post facto prohibition “applies only to penal statutes” and “where the challenged statute does not seek to impose a punishment, it does not run afoul of the Ex Post Facto Clause” … . * * *

We are unable to conclude from this record that prolonged incarceration is a common result of Executive Law § 259-c (14), rather than an idiosyncratic effect, and the Supreme Court has “expressly disapproved of evaluating the civil nature of [a statute] by reference to the effect that [statute] has on a single individual” … . Petitioner has failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating, by the clearest proof, that the effects of Executive Law § 259-c (14) are “so punitive . . . as to negate [the legislature’s] intention to deem it civil” … . People ex rel. Rivera v Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 2023 NY Slip Op 03299, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: Here petitioner remained incarcerated past his parole release date because housing which complied with the school-grounds statute (prohibiting sex offenders from being within 1000 feet of school grounds) could not be found. Even though petitioner was convicted before the school-grounds statute was enacted, the majority concluded the statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. There were three dissenting judges.

 

,

THE STATUTE PROHIBITING SEX OFFENDERS ON PAROLE FROM BEING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the statute prohibiting a sex offender on parole from being within 1000 feet of school grounds applies to youthful offenders:

The Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA) imposes a mandatory restriction prohibiting a person who is “serving a sentence” for an enumerated offense against a minor victim and is released on parole from coming within 1,000 feet of school grounds (see Executive Law § 259-c [14] …). The question presented in this appeal is whether that restriction applies to youthful offenders. We hold that it does.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the attempted second-degree rape of a 13-year-old victim … . Petitioner was 18 years old at the time of the offense and was adjudicated a youthful offender … . He was initially sentenced to a 10-year period of probation, but after violating the terms of his probation, he was resentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. The Board of Parole granted petitioner an open date (that is, the earliest possible release date) of August 2018, subject to numerous conditions of release. As relevant here, petitioner was required to abide by SARA’s school grounds condition and thus would not be released until he identified a SARA-compliant residence. Unable to obtain suitable housing, petitioner remained imprisoned. * * *

The purpose of the school grounds condition is to bar offenders who pose the “highest risk to children” from entering school grounds … . Certainly, someone accorded youthful offender status can fall into this category. While we appreciate that the consequences of imposing the school grounds condition may be severe, the legislature has authorized the imposition of other long-term consequences, such as a lengthy probationary term, on youthful offenders … . And once the youthful offender serves their sentence, the school grounds condition is lifted and the youthful offender will receive the “fresh start” provided to them by statute … . People v Superintendent, Livingston Corr. Facility, 2023 NY Slip Op 03298, CtApp 6-15-23

Practice Point: The statute prohibiting sex offenders on parole from being within 1000 feet of school grounds applies to youthful offenders.

 

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