People v. Mazzio
This text of People v. Mazzio (People v. Mazzio) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Mazzio
2026 NY Slip Op 03461
June 3, 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 the State of New York, respondent,
v
Eugene Mazzio, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 3, 2026
2025-12809
Mark C. Dillon, J.P.
Lillian Wan
Lourdes M. Ventura
Susan Quirk, JJ.
Jeffrey D. Cohen, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Dallas S. Droz on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), dated October 17, 2025, 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.
Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appeals.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed the defendant 20 points on the risk assessment instrument under risk factor 13 for the defendant's unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see People v Padgett, 170 AD3d 1054, 1054; People v LeGrand, 152 AD3d 722, 722; People v Lawson, 90 AD3d 1006, 1007).
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure based on purported mitigating factors is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing (see People v Aguirre, 217 AD3d 784, 784; People v Titone, 209 AD3d 888, 889). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure was warranted.
DILLON, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Mazzio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mazzio-nyappdiv-2026.