Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
19 New York opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mingogreen2 sentences2019The evidence submitted by the People at the SORA hearing, which included reliable hearsay ( see People v Mingo , 12 NY3d 563, 574-575 ), detailed a number of aggravating factors that were not adequately taken into account in the RAI and the Guidelines ( see People v Parisi , 147 AD3d 1162, 1164 ). 2015The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners, as well as the remaining documentation presented by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay,” and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of the points challenged by him on the instant appeal (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Williams, 95 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2012]). | 8 | 9 |
People v. Mabeegreen2 sentences2011The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 573 ; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d at 820 ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010]). 2011The facts as contained in the presentence report, which was offered by the People at the SORA hearing, provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those 15 points (see People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; see also People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; cf. People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]). | 2 | 5 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences2013There is, however, no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues (cf. People v Madera, 100 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012]; People v Faul, 81 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]), “only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug and alcohol abuse” (People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), and no information about what treatment was recommended or why treatment was recommended (see Madera, 100 AD3d at 1112 ; Faul, 81 AD3d at 1247 ). 2013There is, however, no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues (cf. People v Madera, 100 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012]; People v Faul, 81 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]), “only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug and alcohol abuse” (People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), and no information about what treatment was recommended or why treatment was recommended (see Madera, 100 AD3d at 1112 ; Faul, 81 AD3d at 1247 ). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Maderagreen2 sentences2013There is, however, no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues (cf. People v Madera, 100 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012]; People v Faul, 81 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]), “only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug and alcohol abuse” (People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), and no information about what treatment was recommended or why treatment was recommended (see Madera, 100 AD3d at 1112 ; Faul, 81 AD3d at 1247 ). 2013There is, however, no evidence that defendant was ever screened for substance abuse issues (cf. People v Madera, 100 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2012]; People v Faul, 81 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2011]), “only very limited information about his alleged prior history of drug and alcohol abuse” (People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820, 820 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]), and no information about what treatment was recommended or why treatment was recommended (see Madera, 100 AD3d at 1112 ; Faul, 81 AD3d at 1247 ). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Pettigrewgreen2 sentences2011The presentence report and the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d at 573 ; People v Mabee, 69 AD3d at 820 ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010]). 2010The victim’s sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009] ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010] ; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2023Indeed, the sole information in the record regarding defendant's purported history of drug abuse is the "conclusory hearsay" statement ( People v Kowal , 175 AD3d 1057 , 1058 [4th Dept 2019]) 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." I | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Jose Martinez Baxingreen1 sentence2020Even assuming, arguendo, that the harmless error doctrine applies in this context ( see People v Baxin , 26 NY3d 6, 11 [2015]), the error here cannot be deemed harmless inasmuch as we further agree with defendant that the court's alternative basis for the risk level determination also violated defendant's right to due process. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2015The case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners, as well as the remaining documentation presented by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay,” and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of the points challenged by him on the instant appeal (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573 [2009]; People v Williams, 95 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2012]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guitardgreen1 sentence2011The facts as contained in the presentence report, which was offered by the People at the SORA hearing, provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those 15 points (see People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; see also People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; cf. People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence2011The facts as contained in the presentence report, which was offered by the People at the SORA hearing, provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those 15 points (see People v Smith, 78 AD3d 917, 918 [2010]; see also People v Guitard, 57 AD3d 751 [2008]; cf. People v Mabee, 69 AD3d 820 [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2011That evidence provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of 30 points under risk factor 1, notwithstanding that the defendant was acquitted at trial of the counts alleging that he possessed a weapon, which establishes only that the jury did not find all elements of those offenses to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a more rigorous standard of proof than the clear and convincing evidence standard (see People v Vasquez, 49 AD3d 1282, 1284 [2008]; People v Powell, 27 Misc 3d 1212[A] , 2010 NY Slip Op 50719[U] [2010]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bowensgreen1 sentence2010Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor “of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Colavitogreen1 sentence2010Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor “of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cruzgreen1 sentence2010Moreover, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a downward departure, as the defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a mitigating factor “of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 4 [2006]; see People v Cruz, 74 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2010]; People v Colavito, 73 AD3d 1004, 1005 [2010]; People v Bowens, 55 AD3d 809, 810 [2008]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences2011Here, neither risk factor was originally selected on the RAI or raised by the People at the SORA hearing, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points for the first time when the court issued its decision (cf. People v Wheeler, 59 AD3d 1007 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). 2011Here, neither risk factor was originally selected on the RAI or raised by the People at the SORA hearing, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points for the first time when the court issued its decision (cf. People v Wheeler, 59 AD3d 1007 , lv denied 12 NY3d 711 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2011Although the case summary further stated that defendant was scored “non-alcoholic” on the Michigan Alcohol Screening test (cf. People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548 ; People v Gonzalez, 48 AD3d 284 , lv denied 10 NY3d 711 ), he nevertheless was recommended for a chemically dependent sex offender treatment program (see People v Abrams, 76 AD3d 1058 , 1059), and the court relied upon defendant’s attendance in that program for its determination that the assessment of 15 points was warranted under risk factor 11. 2011Although the case summary further stated that defendant was scored “non-alcoholic” on the Michigan Alcohol Screening test (cf. People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548 [2010]; People v Gonzalez, 48 AD3d 284 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]), he nevertheless was recommended for a chemically dependent sex offender treatment program (see People v Abrams, 76 AD3d 1058 , 1059 [2010]), and the court relied upon defendant’s attendance in that program for its determination that the assessment of 15 points was warranted under risk factor 11. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Wheeler
green
2 sentences2011Here, neither risk factor was originally selected on the RAI or raised by the People at the SORA hearing, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points for the first time when the court issued its decision (cf. People v Wheeler, 59 AD3d 1007 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]). 2011Here, neither risk factor was originally selected on the RAI or raised by the People at the SORA hearing, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points for the first time when the court issued its decision (cf. People v Wheeler, 59 AD3d 1007 , lv denied 12 NY3d 711 ). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2011Although the case summary further stated that defendant was scored “non-alcoholic” on the Michigan Alcohol Screening test (cf. People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548 ; People v Gonzalez, 48 AD3d 284 , lv denied 10 NY3d 711 ), he nevertheless was recommended for a chemically dependent sex offender treatment program (see People v Abrams, 76 AD3d 1058 , 1059), and the court relied upon defendant’s attendance in that program for its determination that the assessment of 15 points was warranted under risk factor 11. 2011Although the case summary further stated that defendant was scored “non-alcoholic” on the Michigan Alcohol Screening test (cf. People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548 [2010]; People v Gonzalez, 48 AD3d 284 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]), he nevertheless was recommended for a chemically dependent sex offender treatment program (see People v Abrams, 76 AD3d 1058 , 1059 [2010]), and the court relied upon defendant’s attendance in that program for its determination that the assessment of 15 points was warranted under risk factor 11. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Coger
green
1 sentence2023Although 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 ( see UCMJ art 112a [10 USC § 912a]), which offense occurred nearly one year after the underlying sex offense of sexual abuse of a child ( see UCMJ art 120b [c] [10 USC § 920b (c)]), 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' " ( P | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Hackett
green
1 sentence2020Here, no allegations were made either in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or by the People at the SORA hearing that defendant should be assessed 30 points under risk factor 3, and defendant learned of the assessment of the additional points under that risk factor for the first time when the court issued its decision ( see Chrisley , 172 AD3d at 1916; Hackett , 89 AD3d at 1480 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Parisi
green
1 sentence2019The evidence submitted by the People at the SORA hearing, which included reliable hearsay ( see People v Mingo , 12 NY3d 563, 574-575 ), detailed a number of aggravating factors that were not adequately taken into account in the RAI and the Guidelines ( see People v Parisi , 147 AD3d 1162, 1164 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2018In particular, the presentence investigation report, which was admitted into evidence by the People at the SORA hearing without objection, demonstrated that the defendant, inter alia, "physically overpowered the victim and her attempts to push him off were unsuccessful" ( see generally People v Ramos, 147 AD3d 1090, 1090-1091 ; People v Mitchell, 142 AD3d at 543 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Ramos
neutral
1 sentence2018In particular, the presentence investigation report, which was admitted into evidence by the People at the SORA hearing without objection, demonstrated that the defendant, inter alia, "physically overpowered the victim and her attempts to push him off were unsuccessful" ( see generally People v Ramos, 147 AD3d 1090, 1090-1091 ; People v Mitchell, 142 AD3d at 543 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Copeland
neutral
1 sentence2011The victim’s statement, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009]; People v Copeland, 79 AD3d 716 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]), and satisfied the People’s burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant was armed with a dangerous instrument during the commission of the offense. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Perez v. Travco Insurance
green
1 sentence2011In addition, this same evidence, along with the risk assessment instrument, as well as the defendant’s own testimony at the SORA hearing, demonstrated that the defendant had not accepted responsibility for his conduct (see People v Garcia, 56 AD3d 539 [2008]; People v Alvarez, 49 AD3d 704 [2008]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Alvarez
neutral
1 sentence2011In addition, this same evidence, along with the risk assessment instrument, as well as the defendant’s own testimony at the SORA hearing, demonstrated that the defendant had not accepted responsibility for his conduct (see People v Garcia, 56 AD3d 539 [2008]; People v Alvarez, 49 AD3d 704 [2008]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738 [2007]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2010The victim’s sworn statement and the presentence report, offered by the People at the SORA hearing, constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]; see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 573-574 [2009] ), and provided a sufficient basis for the assessment of those points (see People v Pettigrew, 14 NY3d 406, 408-409 [2010] ; People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 897 [2010]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Guaman
green
1 sentence2010Moreover, the defendant did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed which would warrant a departure from the risk level three designation (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Maiello
green
1 sentence2010Moreover, the defendant did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed which would warrant a departure from the risk level three designation (see People v Maiello, 32 AD3d 463 [2006]; People v Guaman, 8 AD3d 545 [2004]). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.