sora hearing in New York

2026Defendant also stated that while defendant was incarcerated, he never received any disciplinary action, and that the separate case to which the People referenced was still pending, and that under People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 855 [2014] the court should not consider the new matter in considering an upward departure (Transcript from October 17, 2025, SORA hearing: 17-18).

2026Defendant also stated that while defendant was incarcerated, he never received any disciplinary action, and that the separate case to which the People referenced was still pending, and that under People v Gillotti , 23 NY3d 841, 855 [2014] the court should not consider the new matter in considering an upward departure (Transcript from October 17, 2025, SORA hearing: 17-18).

2025At a SORA hearing, the State is represented by the District Attorney's Office, "who shall bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Mingo , 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]).

2025At a SORA hearing, the State is represented by the District Attorney's Office, "who shall bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the determinations sought by clear and convincing evidence" (Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Mingo , 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]).

2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing ( see People v Bowles , 89 AD3d 171, 181 ).

2022Despite SORA proceedings being civil in nature, not criminal ( see People v Mingo , 12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]), we now join the Second Department in explicitly holding that SORA defendants have the right to the effective assistance of counsel, pursuant to the Due Process Clauses contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution and article I, § 6 of the NY Constitution, because the statutory right to counsel in such proceedings ( see Correction Law § 168-n [3]) would otherwise be rendered meaningless, and because SORA determinations affect a defendant's liberty interest ( see People v Bowle

2024"A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing" ( People v Gonzalez , 69 AD3d 819, 819 ; see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Gutierrez-Lucero , 103 AD3d 89 ).

2024"A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing" ( People v Gonzalez , 69 AD3d 819, 819 ; see Correction Law § 168-n[3]; People v Gutierrez-Lucero , 103 AD3d 89 ).

2024"A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; see People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804 ; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 ). "'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'" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 , quoting People v Porter , 37 AD3d a

2024"A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 ; see People v Chang Soo Park , 187 AD3d 804 ; People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797 ). "'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'" ( People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819 , quoting People v Porter , 37 AD3d a

2017Although the People established at the SORA hearing that defendant committed the instant offense while under supervision for a prior conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree, risk factor 13 is concerned with a sex offender’s post-offense behavior while supervised (see People v Neuer, 86 AD3d 926, 927 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see generally People v Warren, 42 AD3d 593, 594-595 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 810 [2007]).

2017Although the People established at the SORA hearing that defendant committed the instant offense while under supervision for a prior conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree, risk factor 13 is concerned with a sex offender’s post-offense behavior while supervised (see People v Neuer, 86 AD3d 926, 927 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 716 [2011]; see generally People v Warren, 42 AD3d 593, 594-595 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 810 [2007]).

2021To the extent that defendant's contention challenging the performance of his assigned counsel during the SORA hearing is not obviated by our analysis and determination, we conclude that, in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2021To the extent that defendant's contention challenging the performance of his assigned counsel during the SORA hearing is not obviated by our analysis and determination, we conclude that, in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2017After a hearing, at which the defendant was not present, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. “ 'A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Souverain, 137 AD3d 765 [2016]; People v Brooks, 308 AD2d 99, 106 [2003]). “[W]here there is a question as to whether the defendant’s failure to appear is deliberate, in order to establish a waiver, evidence must be p

2017After a hearing, at which the defendant was not present, the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level two sex offender. “ 'A sex offender facing risk level classification under [SORA] has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing’ ” (People v Jackson, 94 AD3d 961, 961 [2012], quoting People v Gonzalez, 69 AD3d 819 [2010]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]; People v Souverain, 137 AD3d 765 [2016]; People v Brooks, 308 AD2d 99, 106 [2003]). “[W]here there is a question as to whether the defendant’s failure to appear is deliberate, in order to establish a waiver, evidence must be p

2025"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" ( People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797, 797; see People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819).

2025"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" ( People v Porter , 37 AD3d 797, 797; see People v Perez , 220 AD3d at 819).

2018The People established, by clear and convincing evidence at the SORA hearing, that the defendant showed no genuine acceptance of responsibility for his crime ( see People v Vega , 79 AD3d 718 ; People v Murphy , 68 AD3d 832 ; People v Noriega , 26 AD3d 767 ; People v Whalen , 22 AD3d 900 ).

2018The People established, by clear and convincing evidence at the SORA hearing, that the defendant showed no genuine acceptance of responsibility for his crime ( see People v Vega , 79 AD3d 718 ; People v Murphy , 68 AD3d 832 ; People v Noriega , 26 AD3d 767 ; People v Whalen , 22 AD3d 900 ).

2024"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" ( People v Arrahman , 83 AD3d 680, 680 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2024"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" ( People v Arrahman , 83 AD3d 680, 680 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2021Further, while a SORA court is required to consider "any relevant materials and evidence" submitted by the sex offender, the district attorney, and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Correction Law § 168-n[3]; see People v Wyatt , 89 AD3d 112, 117 ), the court [*2]providently declined to consider certain excerpts from the victim's trial testimony and a police officer's trial testimony, which the defendant purported to offer after the conclusion of the SORA hearing in a belated attempt to discredit the victim's testimony at the SORA hearing ( cf .

2021Further, while a SORA court is required to consider "any relevant materials and evidence" submitted by the sex offender, the district attorney, and the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Correction Law § 168-n[3]; see People v Wyatt , 89 AD3d 112, 117 ), the court [*2]providently declined to consider certain excerpts from the victim's trial testimony and a police officer's trial testimony, which the defendant purported to offer after the conclusion of the SORA hearing in a belated attempt to discredit the victim's testimony at the SORA hearing ( cf .

2025Although "advanced age" may constitute a basis for a downward departure (Guidelines at 5), the defendant failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 49 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor that minimized his risk of reoffense ( see People v Haims , 203 AD3d 1184, 1186 ; People v Santiago , 137 AD3d 762, 764-765 ).

2025Although "advanced age" may constitute a basis for a downward departure (Guidelines at 5), the defendant failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 49 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor that minimized his risk of reoffense ( see People v Haims , 203 AD3d 1184, 1186 ; People v Santiago , 137 AD3d 762, 764-765 ).

2025See People v Palomeque , 170 AD3d 1055 , 1056 (2d Dept 2019) ("the defendant, who committed the subject offense when he was in his 40s, failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA determination, 53 years old, resulted in an overassessment of his risk to public safety and, thus, did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that this mitigating circumstance actually existed"); People v Shelton , 126 AD3d 959, 959-60 (2d Dept 2015) (where defendant, who was 60 years old at the time of the SORA hearing, made several arguments in favor of downward departure, the most significant

2025See People v Palomeque , 170 AD3d 1055 , 1056 (2d Dept 2019) ("the defendant, who committed the subject offense when he was in his 40s, failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA determination, 53 years old, resulted in an overassessment of his risk to public safety and, thus, did not meet his burden of proof in establishing that this mitigating circumstance actually existed"); People v Shelton , 126 AD3d 959, 959-60 (2d Dept 2015) (where defendant, who was 60 years old at the time of the SORA hearing, made several arguments in favor of downward departure, the most significant

2013During the presentence investigation, defendant never admitted to using drugs or alcohol, and he denied abusing any substances at the SORA hearing (cf. People v Zimmerman, 101 AD3d 1677, 1678 [2012]; People v Mundo, 98 AD3d 1292 , 1293 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 855 [2013]; People v Urbanski, 74 AD3d 1882, 1883 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]).

2013During the presentence investigation, defendant never admitted to using drugs or alcohol, and he denied abusing any substances at the SORA hearing (cf. People v Zimmerman, 101 AD3d 1677, 1678 [2012]; People v Mundo, 98 AD3d 1292 , 1293 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 855 [2013]; People v Urbanski, 74 AD3d 1882, 1883 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 707 [2010]).

2025"Although 'advanced age' may constitute a basis for a downward departure" ( People v Porciello , 193 AD3d 993, 994, quoting Guidelines at 5), the defendant failed to demonstrate that [*2]his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 62 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor and minimized his risk of reoffense ( see id. ; People v Rivas , 185 AD3d 740, 740-741; People v Shelton , 126 AD3d 959, 959-960).

2025"Although 'advanced age' may constitute a basis for a downward departure" ( People v Porciello , 193 AD3d 993, 994, quoting Guidelines at 5), the defendant failed to demonstrate that [*2]his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 62 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor and minimized his risk of reoffense ( see id. ; People v Rivas , 185 AD3d 740, 740-741; People v Shelton , 126 AD3d 959, 959-960).

2016Although advanced age and debilitating illness may constitute a basis for a downward departure (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Santiago, 137 AD3d 762, 765 [2016]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d at 746; People v Stevens, 55 AD3d 892, 893 [2008]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant’s age of 73 and purported health conditions did not result in the overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety given, inter alia, that the defendant committed some of the subject offenses whe

2016Although advanced age and debilitating illness may constitute a basis for a downward departure (see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 5 [2006]; People v Santiago, 137 AD3d 762, 765 [2016]; People v Torres, 124 AD3d at 746; People v Stevens, 55 AD3d 892, 893 [2008]), the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the defendant’s age of 73 and purported health conditions did not result in the overassessment of the defendant’s risk to public safety given, inter alia, that the defendant committed some of the subject offenses whe

2013The court merely recited its conclusion, i.e., that “[defendant established a relationship with [the victim] for the purpose of victimization.” Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing (see People v Rotterman, 96 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012]; People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 181 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).

2013The court merely recited its conclusion, i.e., that “[defendant established a relationship with [the victim] for the purpose of victimization.” Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the SORA hearing (see People v Rotterman, 96 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 813 [2012]; People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 181 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 807 [2012]).

2025"At a SORA hearing, the People must prove the facts to support a SORA risk-level classification by clear and convincing evidence" ( People v Howard , 27 NY3d 337, 341 [2016]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

2025"At a SORA hearing, the People must prove the facts to support a SORA risk-level classification by clear and convincing evidence" ( People v Howard , 27 NY3d 337, 341 [2016]; see Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

2015In any event, “the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding ‘are not as extensive as those required in a plenary criminal or civil trial’ ” (Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456, 470 [1998]; see People v Erb, 59 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2009]), and defendant has cited no authority to support his contention that “a personal allocution” is required in order to waive the right to a SORA hearing (People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; see Costas, 46 AD3d at 476 ).

2015In any event, “the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding ‘are not as extensive as those required in a plenary criminal or civil trial’ ” (Doe v Pataki, 3 F Supp 2d 456, 470 [1998]; see People v Erb, 59 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2009]), and defendant has cited no authority to support his contention that “a personal allocution” is required in order to waive the right to a SORA hearing (People v Dexter, 21 AD3d 403, 404 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 716 [2005]; see Costas, 46 AD3d at 476 ).

2025Although advanced age may constitute a basis for a downward departure, the defendant failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 70 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor that minimized his risk of [*2]reoffense ( see People v Wolbert , 207 AD3d 483 ; People v Samuels , 199 AD3d 1034, 1036 ).

2025Although advanced age may constitute a basis for a downward departure, the defendant failed to demonstrate that his age at the time of the SORA hearing, 70 years old, constituted an appropriate mitigating factor that minimized his risk of [*2]reoffense ( see People v Wolbert , 207 AD3d 483 ; People v Samuels , 199 AD3d 1034, 1036 ).