People v. Parada

2026 NY Slip Op 01320
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 2026
DocketInd. No. 3800/06; Appeal No. 6028; Case No. 2023-04296
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 01320 (People v. Parada) 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.

Bluebook
People v. Parada, 2026 NY Slip Op 01320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

People v Parada (2026 NY Slip Op 01320)
People v Parada
2026 NY Slip Op 01320
Decided on March 10, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: March 10, 2026
Before: Renwick, P.J., Kennedy, Friedman, Mendez, Hagler, JJ.

Ind. No. 3800/06|Appeal No. 6028|Case No. 2023-04296|

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Luis Parada, Defendant-Appellant.


Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Hanna Wallace of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Mallory Phelps of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about

August 3, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The substantial majority of the considerations advanced by defendant as mitigating circumstances were clearly and adequately accounted for in the RAI issued by the Board and, to the extent that defendant identifies considerations that were not, they were plainly outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying criminal conduct, which included the repeated anal rape over a two-year period, of a girl who had been entrusted to defendant's care as her babysitter, and was seven or eight years old when the abuse began (see People v Saxton, 231 AD3d 557 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 913 [2025]; People v People v Simmons, 123 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 985 [2015]; People v Cabrera, 91 AD3d 655 [1st Dept 2021]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 10, 2026



Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Gillotti
18 N.E.3d 701 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
Pignataro v. Cacace
91 A.D.3d 655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 NY Slip Op 01320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parada-nyappdiv-2026.