People v. Sappell
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 01237 (People v. Sappell) 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
| People v Sappell |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01237 |
| Decided on March 4, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, Second 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 on March 4, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PAUL WOOTEN
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
2025-09030
v
Frank Sappell, appellant.
Jeffrey D. Cohen, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Danielle S. Fenn, and Liam M. Brozen of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), dated July 15, 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 of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 USC §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252A(b)(1). He now appeals from his designation as a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C).
The defendant's contention that he should have been granted a downward departure from the presumptive risk level is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 421; People v Godek, 237 AD3d 761, 762). In any event, although in some cases involving offenders who possess child pornography, the assessment of points under risk factors 3 and 7 may result in an overassessment of a defendant's risk to public safety (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 860; People v Johnson, 11 NY3d at 419-421), a downward departure was not warranted here given that the defendant possessed more than 12,500 images and videos, involving children as young as two to four years old, and that some of the images and videos were sadomasochistic and depicted rape and sexual abuse committed upon children by adults (see People v Kaiser, 168 AD3d 1002, 1003; People v Goldman, 150 AD3d 905, 907).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, WOOTEN and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 NY Slip Op 01237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sappell-nyappdiv-2026.