N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Penal / PART Specific Offenses / TITLE Offenses Against Marriage, the Family, and the Welfare of Children and Incompetents / ARTICLE Sexual Performance By a Child
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Penal Law § 263.20 (2026)

Sexual performance by a child; affirmative defenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 263.20 Sexual performance by a child; affirmative defenses.
  1. Under this article, it shall be an affirmative defense that the
defendant in good faith reasonably believed the person appearing in the
performance was, for purposes of section 263.11 or 263.16 of this
article, sixteen years of age or over or, for purposes of section
263.05, 263.10 or 263.15 of this article, seventeen years of age or
over.
  2. In any prosecution for any offense pursuant to this article, it is
an affirmative defense that the person so charged was a librarian
engaged in the normal course of his employment, a motion picture
projectionist, stage employee or spotlight operator, cashier, doorman,
usher, candy stand attendant, porter or in any other non-managerial or
non-supervisory capacity in a motion picture theatre; provided he has no
financial interest, other than his employment, which employment does not
encompass compensation based upon any proportion of the gross receipts,
in the promotion of a sexual performance for sale, rental or exhibition
or in the promotion, presentation or direction of any sexual
performance, or is in any way responsible for acquiring such material
for sale, rental or exhibition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Phagan v. State, 486 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phagan v. State, 486 S.E.2d 876 (Ga. 1997). “); N.Y. Penal Law § 263.20 ; N.D. 12.1-27.2-05; lack of knowledge of minor's age an affirmative defense (Oregon § 163.”
People v. Fraser, 752 N.E.2d 244 (N.Y. 2001). “Penal Law § 263.20 contains affirmative defenses applicable when a defendant in good faith reasonably believes that the persons depicted were over 16 years of age and when a person is engaged in certain specified occupations.”
People v. Gilmour, 177 Misc. 2d 250 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “, Penal Law § 263.20 [1].) Unlike the statute in X-Citement (supra), which did not explicitly provide for an element of scienter relating to the contents of the material shipped, transported, received or distributed, Penal Law § 263.”
People v. Bhattacharjee, 51 A.D.3d 684 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). “Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the affirmative defense that he had a good faith reasonable belief that the person appearing in the performance was 17 years of age or older (see Penal Law § 263.20 [1]; People v…”
State v. White, 464 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). “” See 39 N.Y.Penal Law § 263.20 (McKinney 1980). Essentially, White’s constitutional challenge asks whether the unavailability of the mistake of age defense, leading to the exclusion of her evidence of a good faith attempt to determine age, requires a different constitutional…”
People v. Manngard, 275 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense that he had a good faith reasonable belief that the person appearing in the performance was 16 years of age or older (see, Penal Law § 263.20 [1]). *379 We…”
United States v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of California, 858 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1988). “330(2) (Michie 1985); N.Y. Penal Law § 263.20 (1) (McKinney 1980); N.”
People v. Toussaint, 2022 NY Slip Op 01329 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “Contrary to the defendant's contention, with regard to his convictions of use of a child in a sexual performance, he did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the affirmative defense that he had a good faith reasonable belief that the complainant was 17 years of age…”
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.