People v. Corinaldi

<div>People v Corinaldi - 2026 NY Slip Op 02292

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>People v Corinaldi</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02292</p> <p>April 15, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Second Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>The People of the State of New York, respondent,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Brandon Corinaldi, appellant.</p> </div> <p>Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department</p> <p>Decided on April 15, 2026</p> <p>2025-10892</p> <p>Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.</p> <p>Linda Christopher</p> <p>Barry E. Warhit</p> <p>Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Lori Golombek, Mineola, NY, for appellant.</p> <p>Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, and Katherine Pedlow of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>DECISION &amp; ORDER</p> <p>Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Anthony M. Battisti, J.), dated August 25, 2025, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.</p> <p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.</p> <p>The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the second degree. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court found that the defendant was a presumptive level two sex offender, denied his application for a downward departure from his presumptive risk level, and designated him a level two sex offender.</p> <p>A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of "(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the Guidelines; and (2) establishing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence" (<i>People v Wyatt</i>, 89 AD3d 112, 128; <i>see</i> Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006] [hereinafter Guidelines]; <i>People v Gillotti</i>, 23 NY3d 841, 861). "If the defendant makes that twofold showing, the court must exercise its discretion by weighing the mitigating factor to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an overassessment of the defendant's dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism" (<i>People v Khan</i>, 182 AD3d 613, 614; <i>see</i> <i>People v Gillotti</i>, 23 NY3d at 861).</p> <p>The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure because the victim's lack of consent was due only to an inability to consent by virtue of the victim's age is unpreserved for appellate review (<i>see</i> <i>People v Ramirez</i>, 214 AD3d 1008, 1010). In any event, a downward departure is not warranted given, among other things, the age disparity between the then 30-year-old defendant and the then 14-year-old victim (<i>see</i> <i>People v Saul</i>, 220 AD3d 892, 894; <i>People v Ramirez</i>, 214 AD3d at 1010).</p> <p>Although a defendant's response to treatment may qualify as a ground for a downward departure where the response is exceptional (<i>see</i> Guidelines at 17; <i>People v Wallace</i>, 144 <span>[*2]</span>AD3d 775, 776), here, the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his response to treatment was exceptional (<i>see</i> <i>People v Cambarmatute</i>, 243 AD3d 930, 931; <i>People v Kumar</i>, 242 AD3d 1231, 1232).</p> <p>The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.</p> <p>Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's application for a downward departure and designated him a level two sex offender.</p> <p>DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.</p> <p>ENTER:</p> <p>Darrell M. Joseph</p> <p>Clerk of the Court</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>