PEOPLE v. TOLLIVER (2025)

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2017, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law article 6–C), held in abeyance, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

In designating a sex offender's risk level under SORA, “[t]he court shall render an order setting forth its determinations and the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which the determinations are based” (Correction Law § 168–n[3]).  Here, the court's statement at the conclusion of the hearing “did not adequately set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it based its decision” to assess the points at issue on appeal and deny defendant's motion for a downward departure (People v. Smith, 11 N.Y.3d 797, 798, 868 N.Y.S.2d 569, 897 N.E.2d 1050 [2008]).  Instead, the court simply stated:  “The People have met their burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, that 135 points were properly assessed, which corresponds to a Level 3 sex offender designation.  The motion for downward departure is denied.”  The court's written order repeated those statements.  Therefore, we remand the matter to Supreme Court “to specify the required findings and conclusions, based on the evidence already introduced” (People v. Straker, 215 A.D.3d 503, 503, 186 N.Y.S.3d 205 [1st Dept. 2023]).