JUSTICE COURT
Many of the Assigned Counsel Program's participating attorneys frequent local justice courts. A select few of these courts issue opinions on a regular basis. It has come to our attention that these opinions circulate among and are available to all of the local assistant district attorneys. Thus, to balance the playing field, this Program has collected numerous opinions from the local justice courts. Those opinions that we have are indexed on this page and arranged by topic.
To view a decision click the desired case name. To access cases you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer. You may download this free program by clicking here: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
LOCAL OPINIONS
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT IN THE SECOND DEGREE
People v. DiCesare, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
P.L. 240.30(1) held constitutional and not overly broad.
ALEJANDRO (Sufficiency of Information)
People v. DiCesare, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
The communications of "this is war bitch" and "I'll report you for tax invasion" do not satisfy the sufficiency requirement of C.P.L. 170.30(1) to support the charge of Aggravated Harassment.
People v. Great Lakes Video, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
Information charging Defendants with P.L. 235.05 (Obscenity) was found sufficient.
The "community standards" element of obscenity is meant to be a measuring stick for the fact finder at trial to use in evaluating obscenity cases, and extensive evidence of the standard is not required in an Information.
People v Morris,
Erie County Court
(Pietruszka)1999
Proper procedure to reduce a felon charge to a misdemeanor not followed.
Felony charges stayed and case remanded
People v. Rice, Tonawanda (Burns) 1995
Information charging Defendant with P.L. 240.30(1) (Aggravated Harassment) found defective.
People v. Trueman, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
"Unfounded" complaints made to police department, when filed for the sole purpose of annoying another, establish non-hearsay factual allegations which satisfies the Second Degree Harassment element of "no legitimate purpose."
BURGLARY
People v White, Amherst (Farrell) 1977
A backpack does not fall within the ambit of the phrase "burglar
tools"
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION
People v. Lucci, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
The combination of: (1) officer's comments made to the Defendant's friend, (2) the officer ordering the friend back inside Hooters Restaurant, (3) the presence of three other police officers, and (4) questions to the Defendant, amounted to custodial interrogation.
D.W.I
People v Alexander, Appeal to Erie County Court (McCarthy) 1998
Upon posting of the bail the court granted a stay of execution of the judgment of conviction for D.W.I. and aggravated unlicensed operation, pending appeal from such conviction.
People v. Boller, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1994
Court dismissed V&T 1192(3) charge on grounds that the People failed to submit any evidence of written or explicit guidelines regarding the establishment of the D.W.I. checkpoint in question.
People v. Evans, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
When determining the admissibility of breathalyzer results, the crucial time for evaluating the proper working order of a breathalyzer machine is at the time it was administered to the Defendant.
People v Gambino, Hamburg (Gorman) 1997
People v Grosjean, Hamburg (Gorman) 1996
The "plan" for the D.W.I. checkpoint did not pass constitutional muster. (Accord People v Boller, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1994, L.R.C. Newsletter Issue 1, Summ. 1997).
People v Langhans, Hamburg (Gorman) 1995
Court determined there was not probable cause justifying defendant's arrest for V&T 1192-3; where the only facts presented to the Court were that the defendant was involved in a serious automobile accident and that he refused to have blood drawn from him at the hospital.
People v. Lucci, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
The Defendant's manner of walk, along with the facts that he had an odor of an alcoholic beverage about his breath and that his speech was very "slobberish and incoherent," provided officer with reasonable cause to request and administer field sobriety tests to the Defendant.
Since field sobriety tests are non-testimonial, Miranda warnings are not required prior to administering the tests.
People v Mayeski, Hamburg (Gorman) 1995
Defendant found guilty of V&T 1192-2 based upon Court's 10 NYCRR 59 analysis.
People v. Nagel, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
The Defendant's request to seal his D.W.A.I conviction is denied, since the matter was not decided in his favor.
People v. Ullrich, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1993
Court held that a
driveway to a private home does not constitute a "Public Highway" within
the meaning of V&T 1192(7).
96 T 24841, Buffalo City Court (Franczyk) 1997
Defendant found not guilty of V&T 1192-3 under Cruz
Defendant not found guilty of V&T 1192-1 since his impairment was caused
by the combination of alcohol and prescription drugs
People v Urso, Erie County Court (DiTullio) 2001
Defendant's conviction for aggravated unlicensed operation reversed and modified to operating a vehicle without a license because it was obtained with the use of legally insufficient evidence.
ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD
People v Lococo, Erie County Court (Drury) 1997
Defendant's waiver of the right to appeal made as part of a plea allocution also includes a waiver of a sentence where the defendant is unaware of the ultimate length of the sentence at the time of his purported waiver
EX POST FACTO
People v Langdon, Cattaraugus County Court (Nenno) 1997
The requirements of the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act, when applied retroactively, do increase punishment and therefore violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution.
IDENTIFICATION
People v Conrad, Hamburg (Gorman) 1995
Defendant found not guilty since the People failed to offer any identification evidence.
INCOMPETENT PERSON, ENDANGERING WELFARE OF
People v. Hutchinson, Tonawanda (Burns) 1994
Rule application of Public Health Law 12-b(2), 2803-d(7), 10 NYCRR 81.1(a), and P.L. 260.25.
INSURANCE
People v. Sagere, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1992
Defendant found not guilty of violating P.L. 176.10 (Insurance Fraud).
INTEREST OF JUSTICE
People v. Kalnitz, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
Analysis of "interest of justice" motion.
MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT V. INFORMATION
People v. Great Lakes Video, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
When a court is faced with an ambiguous accusatory instrument, a premium must be placed on the substance of the instrument as opposed to the for
If a Defendant is somehow prejudiced by the use of a "substance over form" analysis, a contrary result may be required. For instance, in People v. Petix, Amherst (Farrell), the Court, in deciding a 30.30 motion, rejected the People's reliance on Great Lakes Video when the Defendant argued that the accusatory instrument marked as a misdemeanor complaint must be construed as such. Therefore, since the People cannot answer ready to a Misdemeanor Complaint, the accusatory instrument was dismissed.
"PRETEXTUAL" STOPS
People v. Bishop, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
Analysis of the present state of the law in New York regarding "pre- textual" stops.
PROBATION
People v McGrigg, Erie Count Court (McCarthy) 1997
Defendant's sentence was not harsh and excessive when he failed to report to his probation officer and he allegedly failed to attend a substance abuse program. Defendant's sentence was reversed.
PUBLIC LEWDNESS
People v. Alexander, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
When the Defendant cajoled the victim to approach his vehicle, and then asked her whether she knew what his penis was, while masturbating, the Defendant transformed his vehicle into a public place for purposes of P.L. 245.00.
People v. Prince, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1996
Defendant found guilty of P.L. 245.00(a); while traveling on highway, in broad daylight, was masturbating and passed school bus.
REASONABLE CAUSE TO STOP
People v. Bishop, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
Since the Defendant's license plates were suspended, the police officer had reasonable cause to stop the vehicle.
People v. Lucci, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
Since there was an abandoned car in the proximity of where the Defendant was swaying and stumbling, the officer had reasonable cause to approach and question the Defendant.
Since the officer had a reasonable concern for his safety, and since it was difficult to make inquiries of the Defendant while inside Hooters Restaurant due to noise, the officer had reasonable cause to direct the Defendant outside for further questioning.
People v. Mauger, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
An officer's conclusionary statements that the Defendant's turn was made in an "unsafe and unsatisfactory" manner does not amount to specific and articulable facts providing reasonable cause to justify a stop of a vehicle.
ROSARIO
People v. French, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1989
Rosario violation -- testifying police officer's report of incident.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
People v. Fair, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1989
After Defendant complied with officer's order to step out of car, the officer "bent his head into the car" through an open window and observed (searched) and seized evidence; held unconstitutional search and seizure.
People v. Pugh, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
Evidence seized during the second search of Defendant's motel room was not tainted due to the initial illegal search, since the motel's employees provided the police with first-hand information that criminal activity was taking place in the room
People v. Hitchcock, Tonawanda(Gruber) 1991
Court held that officer who engaged in a protective search of Defendant's pocketbook, and found glass crack pipe, was unconstitutional. However, Defendant's statement made in response to seeing pipe held admissible.
SENTENCING
People v McGriff, Erie County Court (McCarthy)*
Defendant's sentence for violation of probation reversed, since an updated pre-sentence report was not filed.
Defendant has constitutional right to effective and meaningful representation at sentencing
In determining whether a sentence is "harsh and excessive," the appellate standard of review is "clear abuse of discretion"
People v Vickers, Erie County Court (McCarthy) 1997
Defendant's prison sentence for violation of probation suspended and judgment modified in the interest of justice and since the Probation Department recommended probation.
SPEEDY TRIAL
People v Petrazzoulo, Amherst (Farrell) 1997
For purposes of C.P.L. 30.30 time is charged to the People when they fail to exercise due diligence in attempting to obtain a defendant from federal custody
People v Williams, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1992
C.P.L. 30.30 analysis; People must communicate readiness on the record
People v Wrona, Amherst (Farrell) 1996
C.P.L. 30.30 is not applicable to traffic infractions, and C.P.L. 30.20, under the circumstances of this case, did not warrant dismissal
TIME NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE
People v Rivera, Erie County Supreme Court (Wolfgang) 1998
Responsibility for scheduling an arraignment date and securing defendant's appearance lies with the court, not the People cannot be charged with the delay between the People's pre-arraignment statement of readiness and the defendant's arraignment.
710.30
People v. Prince, Tonawanda (Gruber) 1996
C.P.L. 710.30 analysis.
WAIVER OF RIGHTS
People v Morris, Erie County Court (Pietruszka) 1999