People v Green

[*1] People v Green 2005 NY Slip Op 51499(U) [9 Misc 3d 1111(A)] Decided on September 21, 2005 Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, New York County Weinberg, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 21, 2005
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

Steven Green, Defendant



2005NY019876

Richard M. Weinberg, J.

Defendant is charged in an information with two counts of Menacing in the Third Degree and two counts of Harassment in the Second Degree. He moves for an order dismissing the information in the interest of justice pursuant to CPL §210.40 as well as other forms of relief. This statute authorizes a discretionary dismissal where some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrates that prosecution or conviction of the defendant would constitute or result in injustice.

The complainant in this case is a Criminal Court Judge. Prior to the incidents which form the basis for the instant charges, the defendant had appeared before this Judge on several occasions as a defendant in two other cases. In the instant case, it is alleged that the defendant, who recognized the Judge from his prior court appearances, menaced and harassed the Judge on a public sidewalk on two different dates.

Defendant's primary argument is that the case should be dismissed due to the "impossibility of a fair trial" because the complainant is a Criminal Court Judge. This argument, which impugns the professional integrity of the entire Criminal Court Bench, would, if carried to its logical conclusion, effectively grant a defendant immunity from prosecution as long as the victim of the crime was a Criminal Court Judge. It is difficult to imagine that the Legislature intended to immunize criminals for crimes committed against Judges when it enacted Criminal Procedure Law §210.40. Judges are sworn to adjudicate cases fairly and impartially and there is nothing in the canons of judicial ethics which would require recusal simply because the complainant is a Judge. That the alleged victim of these crimes is a sitting Judge and that these alleged crimes occurred because of that status are factors which provide a compelling reason to deny this motion. [*2]

Defendant further argues that the case should be dismissed because defendant "has a reputation for speaking his mind" and "often speaks his mind without regard to the consequences" and, when he twice saw the Judge on the street, was "compelled to communicate his displeasure" concerning the handling of his prior cases in admittedly "insultingly coarse" language. That defendant's alleged actions in this case may be consistent with his normal behavior is hardly a circumstance which cries out for dismissal of the charges in the interest of justice. If anything, the allegations in this case, if true, underscore the need for continued prosecution to put an end to this behavior, regardless of how normal defendant may consider it to be.

Defendant's final argument that he has already been "thoroughly punished" because he spent several days in jail before posting bail is one which is more appropriately raised at sentencing should defendant be convicted of these charges. Such an argument does not support the contention that a conviction would result in injustice.

After both individual and collective consideration of the statutory factors, the Court hereby denies the defendant's motion to dismiss in the interest of justice.

Defendant's request for discovery and a bill of particulars is granted to the extent indicated in the People's response and VDF.

Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the extent of ordering a Huntley hearing.

Defendant's Sandoval motion is referred to the trial court.

The People are reminded of their continuing Brady, Rosario and related responsibilities.

Defendant retains all rights to which he is entitled pursuant to CPL §255.20.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Dated: ___________________________

New York, New YorkJudge of the Criminal Court [*3]