People v. Call — Unsupported SORA upward departure reduced
The Second Department reduced a SORA designation from level three to level two because prosecutors identified no aggravating factor omitted from the risk instrument.
Uncategorized
Appellate Procedure
Uncategorized
People v. Jeff P. — DVSJA resentencing denied without corroborated abuse
The Second Department held that an attempted-murder defendant was not entitled to a DVSJA resentencing hearing because his submissions did not corroborate domestic abuse at the time of the offense.
Uncategorized
People v. Newton — Plate inquiry and plain-view gun justified vehicle search
The Second Department upheld seizure of a gun seen in plain view after a plate database inquiry on an illegally parked vehicle indicated the plates might be stolen.
Uncategorized
People v. Lee — 81-mph residential crash supports homicide charge
A divided Second Department restored a criminally negligent homicide count based on an 81-mph fatal crash in a 30-mph residential zone.
Uncategorized
People v. Allen — Court may reopen a SORA hearing to correct its own risk assessment
The Second Department held that a court may reopen a SORA hearing before final disposition to correct its risk calculation, provided the offender had notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Uncategorized
People ex rel. Barta v. Richards — Second Department Sustains Habeas Writ After Deficient Supplemental Certificate of Compliance
The Appellate Division, Second Department sustained a habeas writ for a defendant held more than 90 days without a valid certificate of compliance, finding the People’s supplemental CoC deficient because 60-plus automatic discovery items—including mandatory impeachment materials—remained outstanding at the time of filing.
Uncategorized
Matter of Rocah v. McCarthy — Writ of Prohibition Cannot Challenge Evidence Preclusion Under CPL 245.80
The Appellate Division, Second Department holds that CPLR Article 78 prohibition does not lie to challenge a criminal court’s evidence preclusion order under CPL 245.80(1)(a), even when the order would effectively prevent the prosecution from presenting its case.