PEOPLE v. DREYER (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Karen M. Wilutis, J.), dated July 10, 2025, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6–C.

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

The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted possession of a sexual performance by a child.  After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6–C), the County Court assessed the defendant a total of 80 points on the risk assessment instrument, and designated him a level two sex offender.  The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly assessed 30 points under risk factor 5 of the risk assessment instrument, as the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one of the victims depicted in the video files that he possessed was 10 years old or less.  The criminal investigator employed by the district attorney who recovered the files from the defendant's phone estimated the children's ages in several of the video files to be between the ages of 4 and 7 years old.  This evidence was also corroborated by screenshot images of the files, which were introduced into evidence at the SORA hearing and viewed by the court in camera (see People v Glosque, 201 AD3d 823, 824;  People v Kopstein, 186 AD3d 757, 758).

Furthermore, the County Court properly assessed 20 points under risk factor 7, as the People established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 16–year–old victim whom the defendant met on Snapchat was a stranger to the defendant and that any relationship that developed during the time period in which the defendant exchanged sexually explicit messages and photographs with the victim prior to attempting to meet for sexual activity was established for the primary purpose of victimization (see Sex Offender Registration Act:  Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 12 [2006];  People v Dowd, 248 AD3d 950, 952;  People v Wagers, 243 AD3d 931, 932;  People v Jony, 219 AD3d 1438, 1439).  Accordingly, the court properly designated the defendant a level two sex offender.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.