A Midtown Therapist Treated a Transgender Teenager for Ten Months. Prosecutors Say He Raped Him in the Office.
Remington Yhap, 47, of Washington Heights was arrested on July 29, 2026 and charged with three counts of rape and one count of endangering the welfare of a child. According to court documents and prosecutors, the person he is alleged to have assaulted was his own patient — a transgender teenage boy he had been treating at a Midtown Manhattan practice since September 2025.
He was arraigned the following day in New York County Criminal Court, where Judge Juliet Howard set bail at $75,000. He was released. His next court date is October 1, 2026. No plea has been reported publicly, and he is presumed innocent unless and until a court says otherwise.
This piece keeps the alleged conduct to the minimum required to report the charges accurately. What it examines instead is the part of the record that is documented and checkable: the professional structure that put this particular clinician alone in a room with a vulnerable minor for the better part of a year.
- 3 counts of rape plus one count of endangering the welfare of a child, filed after an NYPD Manhattan Special Victims Squad investigation — PIX11
- 10 months the teenager had been a patient of the accused, from September 2025 until the summer of 2026, according to court documents — amNewYork
- $75,000 bail set at the July 30 arraignment by Judge Juliet Howard; the defendant was released pending an October 1 court date — NewsNation
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg (D), filed the complaint that underlies the four counts. Prosecutors allege that on June 15, 2026, at roughly 2 p.m., inside the Midtown office where the teenager had been receiving therapy, Yhap forced him into a sexual act and then raped him. That is the whole of the alleged conduct this piece will describe. The teenager’s exact age is reported slightly differently across outlets — one says 17, another 16 — and rather than pick the version that reads better, this piece simply calls him a teenager, which every account agrees on.
The investigation ran through the NYPD’s Manhattan Special Victims Squad, the unit that handles adult and child sex-crime cases in the borough. Yhap was taken into custody on July 29, 2026, six weeks after the date named in the complaint. Bragg’s office has issued no case-specific public statement quoted in the available reporting, and this piece does not manufacture one; what is on the record is that his office filed the charges. Bragg was re-elected to a second term in November 2025 with roughly 74 percent of the vote.
The relationship at the center of the case was a clinical one, and it was not brief. Court documents place the teenager in Yhap’s care from September 2025 through the summer of 2026 — roughly ten months of sessions before the date prosecutors name in the complaint. The practice is Liberation Psychotherapy, at 1215 6th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, a firm whose stated clinical focus includes LGBTQ+ mental health.
That specialization is why the referral pipeline matters. A transgender teenager seeking a therapist who advertises expertise in exactly his circumstances is, by definition, a patient with a narrow set of options and a strong incentive to trust the clinician he finds. It is the same asymmetry that makes the therapeutic relationship valuable when it works: the patient discloses more than he would to anyone else, in a room with a closed door, alone with an adult he has been told is qualified to hear it. Every safeguard in the mental-health licensing system exists because that asymmetry is exploitable.
Yhap’s stated background is not thin on paper. His own practice biography and his public directory listing describe a Master of Social Work earned at New York University in 2023. He is 47 — not a trainee in the conventional sense, but a mid-career entrant to clinical practice. What his own listing also says is the detail that turns this from a crime story into an oversight story.
On his own Psychology Today directory profile, Yhap is listed as a “Pre-Licensed Professional” — a category that means, in plain terms, not yet independently licensed. The same listing names his supervisor: Joseph Anthony LoGiudice. That is a self-reported directory entry, not a determination by any regulator, and no news report has independently confirmed his exact license standing. We flag it as what it is rather than dress it up as a finding.
But if the listing is accurate, it describes a specific arrangement with specific rules. New York regulates pre-licensed social work practice under Part 74 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, which conditions the practice of a not-yet-licensed clinician on supervision by a qualified licensee. The framework exists precisely so that a clinician who has not yet cleared the state’s independent-practice bar is not simply handed a caseload and a closed door.
Not: did a licensing board sit on a complaint? No such complaint is documented anywhere in the record, and this piece will not imply one.
The answerable question is simpler and entirely on the public record: a clinician who describes himself as not yet independently licensed was, according to court documents, conducting one-on-one sessions with a minor on the most sensitive subject matter in his field, for ten months, inside a private office. What did the supervision framework actually consist of? Who reviewed the caseload, and how often? Neither the practice nor the state has said.
Following the arrest, investigators indicated there may be additional victims and pointed the public toward the standard reporting channels: the Manhattan District Attorney’s Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Bureau, the NYPD’s Sex Crimes Hotline, and Crime Stoppers. This is worth stating plainly, because it is the detail most likely to be distorted in the retelling.
That appeal is routine. It is what detectives do after essentially every arrest in a case involving a professional with ongoing access to clients or patients, and it reflects investigative practice rather than any specific knowledge of an additional complaint. It is not evidence that a second victim exists. It is not evidence that anyone sat on a prior warning. No prior complaint against Yhap appears anywhere in the record this piece could verify, and a reader who comes away believing otherwise has been misled — not by the police, but by whoever summarized the case badly.
A Manhattan therapist is accused in court documents of raping a transgender teenage patient at his New York City office.
Yhap is out. Judge Juliet Howard set bail at $75,000 at the July 30 arraignment, and he was released pending an October 1, 2026 court date. That is the posture of the case as of publication: charged on four counts, at liberty on bail, months from the next scheduled appearance, and entitled to the full presumption of innocence on every allegation described above.
Alvin Bragg (D), Manhattan District Attorney — his office filed the complaint underlying the charges. Re-elected to a second term in November 2025 with roughly 74 percent of the vote. No case-specific public statement from him has been reported.
Zohran Mamdani (D), Mayor of New York City — the NYPD, whose Manhattan Special Victims Squad ran the investigation, reports to his administration. No comment on this case has been reported.
Kathy Hochul (D), Governor of New York — the state agencies that license and regulate clinical social work operate under her administration. No comment on this case has been reported.
Neither Liberation Psychotherapy nor the New York State Office of the Professions has said publicly what supervision of Yhap’s caseload consisted of, whether it is under review, or whether his practice status has changed since the arrest. Those are answerable questions that do not depend on the outcome of the criminal case, and nobody has answered them.
Remington Yhap is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. What is documented independent of the verdict is that a clinician who describes himself on his own professional listing as not yet independently licensed spent ten months treating a vulnerable minor one-on-one behind a closed door. No regulator has said what that supervision actually involved. That question survives whatever the court decides.
