People v. Taveres - Sex Offender Classification

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 3rd, 2026

Detected March 4th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's decision adjudicating Rolando Taveres a level two sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court found sufficient evidence for the risk assessment and declined to grant a downward departure.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order adjudicating the defendant, Rolando Taveres, a level two sexually violent offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The court found that the assessment of 25 points under a specific risk factor was properly supported by the SORA Board's case summary and the victim's testimony, establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with a child. The court also affirmed the decision to decline a downward departure from the risk level assessment.

This decision has implications for legal professionals handling SORA cases, reinforcing the evidentiary standards for risk assessments and the factors considered when determining offender classifications. While this specific case involves an individual defendant, the affirmation of the legal standards and the court's discretion in declining downward departures may set precedent for similar cases. Compliance officers should note the emphasis on clear and convincing evidence and the court's deference to the risk assessment instrument unless mitigating factors clearly outweigh the seriousness of the crime.

What to do next

Review case law regarding SORA risk assessments and downward departure considerations.
Ensure all SORA risk assessments are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Document all mitigating factors considered in SORA assessments and justify any departures.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

People v. Taveres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01171
Docket Number: Ind. No. 4241/15; Appeal No. 5981; Case No. 2024-00426
Opinion
Authorities (3)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

People v Taveres (2026 NY Slip Op 01171)
| People v Taveres |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01171 |
| Decided on March 03, 2026 |
| 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: March 03, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Shulman, Higgitt, Rosado, Hagler, JJ.
Ind. No. 4241/15|Appeal No. 5981|Case No. 2024-00426|

*[1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Rolando Taveres, Defendant-Appellant.**

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Rina DeFrancesco of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Ethan Solomon of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Angela Badamo, J.), entered on or about December 1, 2023, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed defendant 25 points under risk factor 2. The SORA Board's case summary, along with the six-year-old victim's testimony before the grand jury, established by clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim (see People v Mingo, 12 NY3d 563, 571-574 [2009]; see also People v Brown, 235 AD3d 101, 115 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 929 [2025]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in declining to grant a downward departure (see generally People v Gilloti, 23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]), and we perceive no basis to substitute our discretion for that of the court. The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument or were outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying crime, which was committed against a young child (see People v Bevel, 224 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 902 [2024]; People v Hernandez, 205 AD3d 485, 485 [1st Dept 2022]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 3, 2026