People v. Jordan
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Jordan
2026 NY Slip Op 03078
May 14, 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
Andre Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Ind No. 3767/08|Appeal No. 6636|Case No. 2024-00381|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec D. Miran of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julianna Sousou of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent sex 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, and defendant has presented no basis for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate him a level two offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. In addition they were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying sexual assault, which defendant perpetrated upon his nine-year-old daughter (see People v Acosta, 225 AD3d 553, 554 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 910 [2024]; People v Cabrera, 91 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]), and his prior conviction for sexually assaulting his six-year old niece, which culminated in a prior level two adjudication and a presumptive override to level three here. This history "demonstrates a dangerous propensity to commit sex crimes against young children" (Acosta, 225 AD3d at 554).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Jordan
2026 NY Slip Op 03078
May 14, 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
Andre Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Ind No. 3767/08|Appeal No. 6636|Case No. 2024-00381|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec D. Miran of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julianna Sousou of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent sex 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, and defendant has presented no basis for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate him a level two offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. In addition they were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying sexual assault, which defendant perpetrated upon his nine-year-old daughter (see People v Acosta, 225 AD3d 553, 554 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 910 [2024]; People v Cabrera, 91 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]), and his prior conviction for sexually assaulting his six-year old niece, which culminated in a prior level two adjudication and a presumptive override to level three here. This history "demonstrates a dangerous propensity to commit sex crimes against young children" (Acosta, 225 AD3d at 554).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Jordan
2026 NY Slip Op 03078
May 14, 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
Andre Jordan, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: May 14, 2026
Ind No. 3767/08|Appeal No. 6636|Case No. 2024-00381|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, JJ.
Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Alec D. Miran of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Julianna Sousou of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level three sexually violent sex 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, and defendant has presented no basis for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate him a level two offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. In addition they were outweighed by the egregiousness of the underlying sexual assault, which defendant perpetrated upon his nine-year-old daughter (see People v Acosta, 225 AD3d 553, 554 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 910 [2024]; People v Cabrera, 91 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 801 [2012]), and his prior conviction for sexually assaulting his six-year old niece, which culminated in a prior level two adjudication and a presumptive override to level three here. This history "demonstrates a dangerous propensity to commit sex crimes against young children" (Acosta, 225 AD3d at 554).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 14, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.