- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Forston
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03453
Background
Defendant Joseph Forston was convicted, upon his guilty plea, of rape in the first degree. After a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law Article 6-C), the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kenneth C. Holder, J.), assessed defendant 90 points on the risk assessment instrument, resulting in a presumptive level two classification. Defendant applied for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, citing a debilitating medical condition and physical limitations that he argued reduced his risk of reoffending. The court denied the application and designated defendant a level two sex offender. Defendant appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the designation, without costs or disbursements. The Court applied the two-step framework for downward departures from People v. Wyatt, 89 AD3d 112, 128, and People v. Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 861: the defendant must first identify an appropriate mitigating factor not adequately accounted for by the guidelines that tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense, and then establish supporting facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
While acknowledging that a debilitating illness may constitute a basis for a downward departure, the Court found defendant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence establishing that his condition reduced his risk of reoffending. Critically, defendant did not submit any medical evidence demonstrating that his sexual functioning had been impaired by his medical condition, and thus failed to show that his condition resulted in an overassessment of his risk to public safety.
Takeaways
Defendants seeking SORA downward departures based on medical conditions must provide specific, detailed medical evidence demonstrating how the condition concretely reduces the risk of sexual recidivism. General assertions of poor health or physical limitations are insufficient. Courts require evidence specifically addressing the nexus between the medical condition and sexual functioning or the ability to commit sexual offenses, not merely evidence of general debility.
Why It Matters
This case is instructive for defense attorneys preparing SORA hearings. A debilitating illness can theoretically support a downward departure, but the evidentiary burden is substantial. Counsel must obtain and present medical records and, ideally, expert medical testimony specifically addressing how the defendant’s condition impairs sexual functioning or the physical capacity to reoffend. Without this targeted evidence, even a genuinely serious medical condition will not overcome the presumptive risk level assessment.