Crimes - Sex Offenders - Sex Offender Registration Act - Downward Departure Declined

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about April 11, 2022, which, adjudicated defendant a risk level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure, and there is no basis for this Court to exercise its independent discretion to adjudicate defendant a level one offender (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The mitigating factors defendant cites were "outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying offense against a young child" (People v Medina, 189 AD3d 588, 588 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 913 [2021]), who was a stranger to him (see People v Johnson, 11 NY3d 416, 419 [2008]), and by defendant's extensive criminal history (see People v Goldbeck, 104 AD3d 567, 567 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 860 [2013]) and history of parole violations, including the underlying offense (see People v Galloway, 93 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 806 [2012]). Defendant's expressions of remorse, completion of substance abuse and sex offender treatment, family support, and participation in vocational training were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument (see People v Frederick, 238 AD3d 493, 494 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 908 [2025]; People v Perez, 226 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 905 [2024]).

Defendant presented no evidence that his response to sex offender treatment was the kind of "exceptional" response for which the risk assessment instrument did not account (People v Bonnemere, 201 AD3d 475, 475 [1st Dept 2022]). His "successful completion of substance abuse treatment . . . while incarcerated" did not warrant a downward departure because it "had minimal bearing on his risk of reoffense once he was released" (People v Ortega, 209 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 908 [2023]).

Under the totality of the circumstances presented, neither defendant's family support nor his active participation in his religious community while in prison warrant a downward departure (see People v Bevel, 224 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 902 [2024]; People v Jones, 226 AD3d 1265, 1267 [3d Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 907 [2024]).

Finally, defendant's presentation of social science research is unavailing because the studies defendant cites are "insufficiently connected to defendant's specific risk of reoffense" (People v Castillo, 211 AD3d 648, 649 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 912 [2023]). Defendant "did not present any expert testimony or other evidence at the hearing that might have allowed the SORA court to make a finding" that these factors made him "less likely to reoffend" (Frederick, 238 AD3d at 494 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Concur—Scarpulla, J.P., Kapnick, González, Shulman, O'Neill Levy, JJ.