From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Perahia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2008
57 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2008-00334.

December 23, 2008.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J), dated December 17, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Henry Putzel III, New York, N.Y. (Lucia T. Chapman of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Skelos, J.P., Santucci, McCarthy and Dickerson, JJ. concur.


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

In February 2004 the defendant, who was then a pediatric medical resident, was found in possession of more than 1,000 images of child pornography, which he had downloaded onto his computer, disks, and CD-ROMs. The images included prepubescent females, some of whom were toddlers or preschoolers, engaging in various sexual acts. He pleaded guilty, inter alia, to one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 USC § 2252A (a) (5) (B).

After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), the defendant was assessed a total of 80 points under risk factors three, five, and seven. He was then designated a level two sex offender. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination to designate him a level two sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore should not be disturbed ( see Correction Law § 168-n). The children depicted in the pornographic images that he possessed are "victims" within the meaning of SORA ( see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416; People v Worley, 57 AD3d 753; People v Villane, 49 AD3d 517; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738), and he was properly assessed a total of 80 points under risk factors three, five, and seven ( see Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10-12 [2006]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Perahia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 23, 2008
57 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

People v. Perahia

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ADAM PERAHIA, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 23, 2008

Citations

57 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 10142
868 N.Y.S.2d 924

Citing Cases

People v. Stella

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in designating the defendant a level two sex offender.…

People v. Poole

We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in assessing 30 points against him under risk factor…