People v Kislowski

Annotate this Case
People v Kislowski 2017 NY Slip Op 08169 Decided on November 21, 2017 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 21, 2017
No. 145 SSM 24

[*1]The People & c., Respondent,

v

Joseph W. Kislowski, Appellant.



Submitted by William E. Montgomery, III, for appellant.

Submitted by Benjamin R. Smith, for respondent.



MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the amended violation of probation petition dismissed.

Defendant Joseph Kislowski appeals from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed County Court's judgment, among other things, revoking defendant's probation (People v Kislowski, 145 AD3d 1197 [3d Dept 2016]). County Court determined that defendant violated the terms of his probation, which prohibited him from associating with any convicted criminals, when on four occasions he picked up and walked the dog he once shared with his former intimate partner, who had a DWI misdemeanor conviction. The amended violation of probation petition, which listed four dates on which defendant allegedly "had contact with" a convicted criminal, but did not include any additional information, was facially insufficient as it did not comport with the statutory requirement of providing probationer with the time, place, and manner of the alleged violation (CPL 410.70). Here, the defect in the amended petition was not cured by defendant's questions posed to the court at the prior arraignment, the substance of which indicated that he did not have notice of the manner in which he allegedly violated a condition of his probation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed and amended violation of probation petition dismissed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided November 21, 2017



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.