Published on:

by

People v Y

Decision

This is an appeal by the defendant from a Supreme Court judgment, which was decided on February 7, 2013. The defendant was convicted of first degree sexual conduct against a child (3 counts), second degree sexual conduct against a child (two counts), second degree criminal sexual acts (16 counts), second degree sexual abuse (27 counts), third-degree sexual abuse (24 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (3 counts).

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

People v Ellis

In this case the People assert that the defendant is a level 3 sex offender. Because of this, he was required, pursuant to Corrections Law 168-7(4), to register his Facebook account. The law specifies that it must be done no later than 10 days after a change of address or internet identifiers. Internet identifiers are defined as any electronic mail addresses or designations used to chat, for instant messaging, social media or other internet communication (Corrections Law 168-a[18]. Failure to register is considered a class E felony for the first offense, and the second offense is a class D felony.

The defendant filled out his annual verification form. This form required him to disclose internet information such as his screen name, service provider, and email address. While he disclosed the identifier on his Facebook account, he didn’t disclose that he had a Facebook account. He was charged with a violation of Corrections Law 168-f (4) on the premise that he didn’t disclose the account as an internet identifier.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(Matter of N. v NY Office of Children & Family Services, NY Slip Op 04379)

June 18, 2018

The court rules that this decision should be reversed, and the petition dismissed without costs. Despite the defendant’s argument, the court does indeed have jurisdiction over this appeal considering the dual dissent of the appellate decision is a question of law ( CPLR 5601), Matter of Kelly v Safir 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]. The question the courts must determine is whether there is a rational reason for the action, or whether it is arbitrary (Matter of Peckham v Calogero 12 NY3d 424, 431 [2009]. The court remarked that an arbitrary action is without a sound reason or basis, and is often made without consideration of the facts involved. If the reviewing court finds there is a rational basis, the reviewing court must sustain the determination even if the court believes it would have achieved a different result.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(People v. A., NY Slip Op 00894)

This is an appeal from a Supreme Court decision dated 8/26/15, convicting the defendant of assault in the first degree.

The court ordered that the judgment be reversed and a new trial is ordered.

by
Posted in: and
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(People v. C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08951)

Dec. 26, 2018

The defendant appealed from a judgment from Rockland County Court (June 10, 2015), where he was found guilty of endangering the welfare of a child and sexual assault against a child.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(People v. DA, NY Slip Op 08537)

December 13, 2018

In this case, the court weighs the question regarding whether the grand jury can readdress a charge that has been presented to it after it had been dismissed in a prior proceeding. The court held that a charge may not be resubmitted to another grand jury pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 190.75(3).

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

(The People of the State of New York v. M.M.)

The defendant filed this appeal regarding his guilty plea of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the 5th degree. The court initially agreed with the defendant that his waiver of an appeal was invalid.

The defendant argues that the court failed to assign him new counsel at his sentencing hearing. The court disagrees. The court states that this argument is invalid because the defendant didn’t make an adequate case asking for new counsel. Therefore, the court didn’t err in failing to conduct an inquiry whether good cause was shown to substitute counsel (People v Mathews 142 AD3d 1354, People v Singletury 63 AD3d 1654, 1655 [4th Dept. 2009].

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The issue in this proceeding is whether a claim for innocence lies under CPL 440.10(1)(h) to vacate a judgment of conviction based on the defendant’s guilty plea. The court felt that the defendant’s pleas of innocence is not adequate grounds for relief.

The defendant is a nurse who was a caregiver for the victim. The victim is a disabled 10-year-old girl, who is blind, immobile and unable to speak. The defendant bathed the girl using a hand-held shower device. When she applied lotion to the girl’s legs after a shower, she noticed her skin was red and peeling.

The defendant called the girls parents who took her to the doctor. The doctor initially determined that that the victim had had an adverse reaction to medication. She was then referred to a hospital. At the second medical facility, it was determined that her condition was due to third-degree burns, which required skin grafts.

by
Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information