State of New York ex rel. Greenwald v Schriro

State of New York ex rel. Greenwald v Schriro 2012 NY Slip Op 04701 Decided on June 12, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 12, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
8072 102344/12

[*1]The State of New York ex rel. Gary Greenwald, Esq., on behalf of Anna Gristina, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Dora B. Schriro, etc., Respondent-Respondent.




Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, CT, of the bar of the State of
Connecticut, admitted pro hac vice, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Charles
Linehan of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2012, denying petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition seeking a reduction of bail previously set in the amount of $2 million bond or $1 million cash (Juan M. Merchan, J.), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the writ granted to the extent of reducing the bail to $250,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the sum of $125,000 as a cash bail alternative, on the conditions that petitioner surrender any and all passports she may have to the Office of the District Attorney of New York County and is prohibited from applying for any new or replacement passports, and that petitioner arrange for electronic monitoring at her expense and wear an electronic monitoring device upon her release.

After reviewing the entire record and considering the factors set forth in CPL 510.30(2)(a), we find that the amount of bail set by the trial court was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion, and that, taking into account the risk of petitioner's flight, bail in the reduced amount indicated is sufficient to ensure petitioner's attendance (see e.g. People ex rel. Robinson v Warden, 135 AD2d 421 [1987]). Among other factors, we note that notwithstanding the notoriety of this case, petitioner is charged with a class D, nonviolent felony and she has no [*2]criminal record. In addition, she is a long-term resident of Orange County, is married, and is the mother of four children, including a nine-year-old child, who are United States citizens.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 12, 2012

CLERK