Court Opinion

ID: 9942217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 18:07:58.979548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:50.934235
License: Public Domain

People v Bonczek (2024 NY Slip Op 00873)

People v Bonczek

2024 NY Slip Op 00873

Decided on February 20, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: February 20, 2024

Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. 

Ind. No. 30186/18 Appeal No. 1690 Case No. 2019-2014 

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
vJames Bonczek, Defendant-Appellant.

Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Robin Richardson of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Meghan McLoughlin of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel Conviser, J.), entered on or about December 17, 2018, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court providently exercised its discretion in granting an upward departure to a risk level three adjudication (see People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]). The numerous aggravating factors that were unaccounted for by the risk assessment instrument and the heinousness of defendant's underlying crime outweighed any mitigating considerations. Defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography, including images of an egregious and sadomasochistic nature. Further, while defendant was released on bond pending trial, he was found to be in possession of newly accessed sexually suggestive photographs of prepubescent boys and a book published by the North American Man-Boy Love Association. The foregoing, along with defendant's history of exploiting his profession as a psychotherapist to gain access to children and prior uncharged acts of sexual abuse of two young boys, demonstrate that he is a dangerous pedophile with a high risk of reoffending (see People v Vives, 57 AD3d 312, 313 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 705 [2009]; People v Newman, 71 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2010]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: February 20, 2024