Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026

People v. Mazzio

People v. Mazzio
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 3, 2026
2026 NY Slip Op 03461
People v. Mazzio

Opinion

People v Mazzio - 2026 NY Slip Op 03461
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

People v Mazzio

2026 NY Slip Op 03461

June 3, 2026

Appellate Division, Second 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

Eugene Mazzio, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on June 3, 2026

2025-12809

Mark C. Dillon, J.P.

Lillian Wan

Lourdes M. Ventura

Susan Quirk, JJ.

Jeffrey D. Cohen, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Dallas S. Droz on the brief), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), dated October 17, 2025, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

Following a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), the Supreme Court designated the defendant a level three sex offender. The defendant appeals.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly assessed the defendant 20 points on the risk assessment instrument under risk factor 13 for the defendant's unsatisfactory conduct with sexual misconduct while confined (see People v Padgett, 170 AD3d 1054, 1054; People v LeGrand, 152 AD3d 722, 722; People v Lawson, 90 AD3d 1006, 1007).

The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a downward departure based on purported mitigating factors is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing (see People v Aguirre, 217 AD3d 784, 784; People v Titone, 209 AD3d 888, 889). In any event, the defendant failed to establish that a downward departure was warranted.

DILLON, J.P., WAN, VENTURA and QUIRK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

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.