N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Against the Person Involving Physical Injury, Sexual Conduct, Restraint and Intimidation / ARTICLE Sex Offenses
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 130.16 (2026)

Sex offenses; corroboration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 130.16 Sex offenses; corroboration.
  A person shall not be convicted of any offense defined in this article
of which lack of consent is an element but results solely from
incapacity to consent because of the victim's mental defect, or mental
incapacity, or an attempt to commit the same, solely on the testimony of
the victim, unsupported by other evidence tending to:
  (a) Establish that an attempt was made to engage the victim in vaginal
sexual contact, oral sexual contact, anal sexual contact, or sexual
contact, as the case may be, at the time of the occurrence; and
  (b) Connect the defendant with the commission of the offense or
attempted offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case: People v. Hudy, 535 N.E.2d 250 (NY 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hudy, 535 N.E.2d 250 (NY 1988). · cites it 9× “Ex Post Facto At the time defendant allegedly committed the crimes for which he was tried, Penal Law § 130.16 provided: "A person shall not be convicted of consensual sodomy, or an attempt to commit same, or of any offense defined in [article 130] of which lack of consent is an…”
People v. Groff, 518 N.E.2d 908 (NY 1987). · cites it 3× “A similar intermediate standard is prescribed by Penal Law § 130.16 which requires corroboration for those sex offenses in *108 which lack of consent is an element where the victim lacks mental capacity.”
People v. Keindl, 502 N.E.2d 577 (NY 1986). · cites it 2× “The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions, correctly rejecting defendant’s contentions that the corroboration requirements of Penal Law § 130.16 were not met, that the evidence adduced as to forcible compulsion was insufficient under Penal Law § 130.”
STATE of Tennessee v. DeWayne COLLIER AKA Patrick Collier, 411 S.W.3d 886 (Tenn. 2013). “1995) (citing N.Y. Penal Law § 130.16 ) (requiring corroboration in sex offense case involving intellectually disabled victim).”
State v. Byers, 627 P.2d 788 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 2× “, N.Y. Penal Law § 130.16 (corroboration needed for consensual crimes where by law the prosecutrix could not consent); Miss.”
People v. Carroll, 740 N.E.2d 1084 (NY 2000). “, People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 109 ; see also, Penal Law § 130.16 [corroboration rule now limited to those sex offenses for which the victim is deemed incapable of consent because of a mental defect or mental incapacity]).”
In re Nicole V., 123 A.D.2d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 2× “) A further liberalization of the criminal corroboration requirement in sex offense cases occurred in 1984, when an amendment to Penal Law § 130.16 repealed the requirement for corroboration of the testimony of a child victim of a sex offense.”
Fitzgerald v. United States, 443 A.2d 1295 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “1966); N.Y.Penal Law § 130.16 (McKinney 1975), People v.”
People v. Lewis, 506 N.E.2d 915 (NY 1987). “Furthermore, corroboration of the victim’s testimony was not necessary (see, Penal Law §§ 130.16, 255.30 [2]; People v Facey, 69 NY2d 836 , affg 115 AD2d 11 ; People v Ahlers, 98 AD2d 821 ) but even if corroboration was required, the testimony did not, in the language of People…”
People v. Bagarozy, 132 A.D.2d 225 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 2× “The charges relating to the first incident were dismissed for lack of corroboration as required by Penal Law § 130.16 prior to its amendment.”
People v. Soulia, 263 A.D.2d 869 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 2× “, supra, at 782-783; People v King, 162 AD2d 473 , lv denied 76 NY2d 859 ; People v Taylor, 124 AD2d 1002 , lv denied 69 NY2d 834 ; People v Dickson, 112 AD2d 312 ) and, since 1984, corroboration is no longer required on the remaining counts of sexual abuse and sodomy defined in…”
People v. Irving, 151 A.D.2d 605 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 2× “The defendant’s contention that Penal Law § 130.16 required corroboration of the testimony of a complainant is without merit.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.