People v. Solar
This text of People v. Solar (People v. Solar) 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 Solar
2026 NY Slip Op 03763
June 16, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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
Felipe Solar, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: June 16, 2026
Ind. No. 541/03|Appeal No. 6897|Case No. 2022-05214|
Before: Webber, J.P., Kapnick, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Cathy Liu of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jonathan L. Gold of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about October 27, 2022, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent predicate sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correctional Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure, and no basis exists for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate him a level two offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). As this Court determined with respect to defendant's New York County conviction (People v Solar, 243 AD3d 531 [1st Dept 2025]), there were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. Given the egregiousness of the underlying crimes and the danger that a reoffense by defendant would cause a high degree of harm, there is no basis for a downward departure (see People v Roldan, 140 AD3d 411 [1st Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). Defendant has not shown that his rehabilitative efforts, his family support, or his age warrant a downward departure.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 16, 2026
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. Solar, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solar-nyappdiv-2026.