People v Perahia
2008 NY Slip Op 10142 [57 AD3d 865]
December 23, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
AdamPerahia, Appellant.

[*1]Henry Putzel III, New York, N.Y. (Lucia T. Chapman of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and AnneGrady of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.),dated December 17, 2007, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant toCorrection Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In February 2004 the defendant, who was then a pediatric medical resident, was found inpossession of more than 1,000 images of child pornography, which he had downloaded onto hiscomputer, disks, and CD-ROMs. The images included prepubescent females, some of whom weretoddlers or preschoolers, engaging in various sexual acts. He pleaded guilty, inter alia, to one count ofpossessing child pornography in violation of 18 USC § 2252A (a) (5) (B).

After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA), the defendantwas assessed a total of 80 points under risk factors three, five, and seven. He was then designated alevel two sex offender. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination to designate him a leveltwo sex offender was supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore should not bedisturbed (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). The children depicted in the pornographicimages that he possessed are "victims" within the meaning of SORA (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416 [2008]; People v Worley, 57 AD3d 753 [2008]; People v Villane, 49 AD3d 517 [2008]; People v Lawless, 44 AD3d 738[2007]), and he was properly assessed a total of 80 points under risk factors [*2]three, five, and seven (see Sex Offender Registration Act: RiskAssessment Guidelines and Commentary at 10-12 [2006]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, McCarthy andDickerson, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.