People v. Azpeitia
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Azpeitia
2026 NY Slip Op 04441
July 15, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of State of New York, respondent,
v
Salvador Azpeitia, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 15, 2026
2023-08337
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Lara J. Genovesi
William G. Ford
Lillian Wan, JJ.
N. Scott Banks, Hempstead, NY (Tammy Feman and Elizabeth Walker of counsel), for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Francine R. Michel of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christopher Hoefenkrieg, J.), dated August 17, 2023, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On January 24, 2023, the defendant waived indictment and entered a plea of guilty under a superior court information to two counts of forcible touching, relating to two children under the age of 10 years.
After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court miscalculated the defendant's points on the risk assessment instrument at 125 points, when he was in fact assessed 120 points, and denied his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level. However, the defendant was properly assessed sufficient points to render him presumptively a level three sex offender (see People v Luy, 238 AD3d 916, 917; People v Holmes, 222 AD3d 791; People v Tobo, 184 AD3d 885; People v Lewis, 178 AD3d 864; People v Mosley, 106 AD3d 1067; People v Lewis, 37 AD3d 689, 690).
Further, the defendant's application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level was properly denied. The defendant did not demonstrate how the alleged mitigating factors, including his family situation, which was detrimentally affected by these offenses, would reduce his risk of reoffending (see People v Green, ___ NY3d ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 03378).
Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from.
BARROS, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Azpeitia (People v. Azpeitia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.