New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 235.22 (2026)

Disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 235.22 Disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree.
  A person is guilty of disseminating indecent material to minors in the
first degree when:
  1. knowing the character and content of the communication which, in
whole or in part, depicts or describes, either in words or images actual
or simulated nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which
is harmful to minors, he intentionally uses any computer communication
system allowing the input, output, examination or transfer, of computer
data or computer programs from one computer to another, to initiate or
engage in such communication with a person who is a minor; and
  2. by means of such communication he importunes, invites or induces a
minor to engage in vaginal sexual contact, oral sexual contact or anal
sexual contact, or sexual contact with him, or to engage in a sexual
performance, obscene sexual performance, or sexual conduct for his
benefit.
  Disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree is a
class D felony.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: People v. Foley, 731 N.E.2d 123 (NY 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Foley, 731 N.E.2d 123 (NY 2000). · cites it 33× “22 is overbroad and vague, that it is a content-based restriction that cannot survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, and that it violates the Commerce Clause.”

People v. Kozlow, 870 N.E.2d 118 (NY 2007). · cites it 22× “Kozlow moved to dismiss the charges, arguing, among other things, that Penal Law § 235.22 applied only when a defendant's communication to a minor involved indecent pictorial representations.”

People v. Foley, 257 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 13× “Defendant challenges the constitutionality of Penal Law § 235.22 and contends that alleged errors that occurred during trial require reversal.”

People v. Barrows, 177 Misc. 2d 712 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). · cites it 13× “Count 8, charging the same crime, is also premised upon these communications of November 1 but the actual meeting of December 23 is the basis for the attempt to induce sexual activity required under subdivision (2) of Penal Law § 235.22. Following the cyberchat and photo…”

State v. Backlund, 2003 ND 184 (N.D. 2003). · cites it 4× “Thus, the Commerce Clause ordains that only Congress can legislate in this area, subject, of course, to whatever limitations other provisions of the Constitution (such as the First Amendment) may require.”

People v. Rudolph, 997 N.E.2d 457 (NY 2013). “tiff would have received $40 million, the jury’s award, in actual dollars], as modified by L 2003, ch 86 [altering CPLR 5031 to require the court to instruct the jury to specify the growth rate applicable to any award of future damages and clarifying the basis for a court’s…”

People v. Foley, 258 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). · cites it 13× “Defendant challenges the constitutionality of Penal Law § 235.22 and contends that alleged errors that occurred during trial require reversal.”

People v. Wheeler, 2023 NY Slip Op 02718 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023). · cites it 2× “Defendant's further claim — that the act of one person handing an SD card depicting nudity to another does not constitute a "communication" within the meaning of Penal Law § 235.22 (1) and, hence, is not actually a crime — is equally unpersuasive.”

People v. Kozlow, 46 A.D.3d 913 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 2× “The defendant’s e-mails knowingly communicated sexual depictions, by which he importuned, invited, or induced sexual contact with someone that he believed to be a minor (see Penal Law § 235.22). The defendant maintains that the evidence shows that he merely intended to engage in…”

Am. Libraries Ass'n v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “The local benefit to be derived from the challenged section of the statute is therefore confined to that narrow class of cases that does not fit within the parameters of any other law. The efficacy of the statute is further limited, as discussed above, to those eases which New…”

People v. Helms, 2016 COA 90 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “2d at 127 (emphasis omitted) (quoting N.Y. Penal Law § 235.22 (McKinney 2016)).”

People v. Riverso, 96 A.D.3d 1533 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Defendant was convicted of three counts of disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree (Penal Law § 235.22), in connection with sexually explicit text messages that he transmitted to three 16-year-old girls who played on a soccer team that he coached.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— N.Y. Penal Law § 235.22(1) — 1 case

Matter of Kozlow (N.Y. App. Div. 2016).

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.