PEOPLE v. FARNHAM (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), dated November 21, 2025, which, after a hearing, denied his petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2) to modify his risk level classification under Correction Law article 6–C.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In July 2004, the defendant was designated a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6–C).  In December 2024, the defendant filed a petition pursuant to Correction Law § 168–o(2) for a downward modification of his risk level classification from level two to level one.  Following a hearing, in an order dated November 21, 2025, the County Court denied the defendant's petition.  The defendant appeals.

“The objective of SORA is to evaluate a particular sex offender's risk of reoffense once he or she is released back into the community so that appropriate supervision and notification can be achieved” (People v. Davis, 179 A.D.3d 183, 186, 115 N.Y.S.3d 350).  “SORA is ‘designed not to punish, but rather to protect the public’ ” (id., quoting People v. Windham, 10 N.Y.3d 801, 802, 856 N.Y.S.2d 557, 886 N.E.2d 179).  “Correction Law § 168–o(2) permits a sex offender required to register under SORA to petition annually for modification of his [or her] risk level classification” (People v. Booker, 240 A.D.3d 620, 621, 237 N.Y.S.3d 695 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  “In such circumstances, ‘[t]he sex offender shall bear the burden of proving the facts supporting the requested modification by clear and convincing evidence’ ” (People v. Davis, 179 A.D.3d at 187, 115 N.Y.S.3d 350, quoting Correction Law § 168–o[2] ).  “[T]he relevant inquiry regarding Correction Law § 168–o(2) applications is whether conditions have changed subsequent to the initial risk level determination warranting a modification thereof” (People v. Booker, 240 A.D.3d at 621, 237 N.Y.S.3d 695 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Here, the defendant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, facts warranting a modification of his existing risk level classification from level two to level one (see id. at 621–622, 237 N.Y.S.3d 695;  People v. Gould, 239 A.D.3d 775, 236 N.Y.S.3d 674;  People v. Holley, 231 A.D.3d 1064, 220 N.Y.S.3d 413).  Although the defendant submitted evidence that he was 60 years old at the time of the hearing, that he had not been arrested or convicted of a sex offense since 2000, and that he had family support, the additional evidence submitted, including a psychosexual evaluation, did not sufficiently establish that the conditions had changed since his conviction so as to warrant modification of his risk level (see People v. Wiggins, 180 A.D.3d 820, 821, 118 N.Y.S.3d 239).

CHAMBERS, J.P., FORD, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.