PEOPLE v. ALAM (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Althea Drysdale, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2021, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014]).  Defendant's family support has been adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v. Sadagheh, 214 A.D.3d 566, 183 N.Y.S.3d 853 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 40 N.Y.3d 902, 2023 WL 6066638 [2023]).  Defendant also has not established that his familial support would reduce his particular likelihood of reoffense (see People v. Roman, 198 A.D.3d 425, 426, 152 N.Y.S.3d 296 [1st Dept. 2021]).  Nor has defendant shown that his health condition would “eliminate[ ] any significant risk of reoffense” (People v. Rodriguez, 101 A.D.3d 630, 631, 955 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 851, 2012 WL 6699108 [2013];  see also People v. Sudderth, 171 A.D.3d 593, 96 N.Y.S.3d 852 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 913, 2019 WL 4267890 [2019]).  Defendant's underlying offense of inappropriate sexual contact with an 11–year–old child, during a food delivery to the apartment of a friend she was spending the night with, along with his propensity for pornography depicting teenagers and his history, which included sexual misconduct toward female prison staff during a prior incarceration and stalking of a teenage girl, indicates a significant risk of recidivism and danger to the community that is not outweighed by the mitigating factors.  Defendant's contention that his recent improvements in managing his mental illness, which has contributed to the prior and underlying misconduct, would reduce his risk of reoffense is unpersuasive, particularly given his denials of guilt and refusal to participate in sex offender treatment.