PEOPLE v. YOUNG (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2022, which, adjudicated defendant a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6–C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure, and there is no basis for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate defendant a level one offender (see People v. Gillotti, 23 N.Y.3d 841, 861, 994 N.Y.S.2d 1, 18 N.E.3d 701 [2014]).  The mitigating factors defendant cites were “outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying offense against a young child” (People v. Medina, 189 A.D.3d 588, 588, 134 N.Y.S.3d 180 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 36 N.Y.3d 913, 2021 WL 1806380 [2021]), who was a stranger to him (see People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 419, 872 N.Y.S.2d 379, 900 N.E.2d 930 [2008]), and by defendant's extensive criminal history (see People v. Goldbeck, 104 A.D.3d 567, 567, 963 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 21 N.Y.3d 860, 2013 WL 3197669 [2013]) and history of parole violations, including the underlying offense (see People v. Galloway, 93 A.D.3d 575, 940 N.Y.S.2d 489 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 806, 2012 WL 2094314 [2012]).  Defendant's expressions of remorse, completion of substance abuse and sex offender treatment, family support, and participation in vocational training were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v. Frederick, 238 A.D.3d 493, 494, 234 N.Y.S.3d 164 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 908, 2025 WL 3275456 [2025];  People v. Perez, 226 A.D.3d 487, 208 N.Y.S.3d 179 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 905, 2024 WL 4229156 [2024]).

Defendant presented no evidence that his response to sex offender treatment was the kind of “exceptional” response for which the risk assessment instrument did not account (People v. Bonnemere, 201 A.D.3d 475, 475, 156 N.Y.S.3d 838 [1st Dept. 2022]).  His “successful completion of substance abuse treatment ․ while incarcerated” did not warrant a downward departure because it “had minimal bearing on his risk of reoffense once he was released” (People v. Ortega, 209 A.D.3d 540, 540, 175 N.Y.S.3d 212 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 908, 2023 WL 1975895 [2023]).

Under the totality of the circumstances presented, neither defendant's family support nor his active participation in his religious community while in prison warrant a downward departure (see People v. Bevel, 224 A.D.3d 430, 431, 204 N.Y.S.3d 103 [1st Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 902, 2024 WL 4125689 [2024];  People v. Jones, 226 A.D.3d 1265, 1267, 210 N.Y.S.3d 334 [3d Dept. 2024], lv denied 42 N.Y.3d 907, 2024 WL 4558686 [2024]).

Finally, defendant's presentation of social science research is unavailing because the studies defendant cites are “insufficiently connected to defendant's specific risk of reoffense” (People v. Castillo, 211 A.D.3d 648, 649, 179 N.Y.S.3d 564 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 912, 2023 WL 3102285 [2023]).  Defendant “did not present any expert testimony or other evidence at the hearing that might have allowed the SORA court to make a finding” that these factors made him “less likely to reoffend” (Frederick, 238 A.D.3d at 494, 234 N.Y.S.3d 164 [internal quotation marks omitted]).