People v Basile
Annotate this CaseDecided on January 31, 2012
Integrated Youth Part, Weschester County Court
The People of the State of New York,
against
Lily Basile, Defendant.
07015M-11
ADA Jamie Fair
Legal Aid Society - Mary Pat Long, Esq.
David Peck, Esq.
Elias Gootzeit, Esq.
Kathie E. Davidson, J.
"Youth crime as such is not exclusively the offender's fault; offenses by the young also represent a failure of family, school and the social system, which share responsibility for the development of America's youth." Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 at 116, 102 S. Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1(1982), citing Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders, Confronting Youth Crime 7 (1978).
By Administrative Order dated September 18, 2008, the Chief Administrative Judge Kaye, established an Integrated Youth Court in Westchester County. The stated purpose of this part was to operate as a multi-court part of the Westchester County and Family Courts. Such a part was established to hear and determine, in a single forum, cases that are pending simultaneously in local criminal courts or county courts and family courts. The focus of this specialty part was to provide a non-adversarial forum with a focus on identifying the specific needs of the youth and their families and provide family court based treatment and services which are otherwise not available for youth in criminal courts.
The instant case is an example of one of the many cases that was handled in the Integrated Youth Court.
Defendant, Lily Basile, is charged with committing the crime of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (PL §215.50(3). Defendant, through counsel, has filed the instant motion to dismiss in the interests of justice pursuant to CPL § 170.40.
Defendant has been known to Family Court since approximately May 2007. To say that Defendant and her mother have had a tumultuous relationship during the pendency of this entire case would be an understatement.
Lily, the Defendant, had a very difficult upbringing. Court records show that Lily was born in the Philippines. It was reported that Lily was "lost" in a market by her father, but it is unknown if it was accidental or intentional. She lived in an orphanage and in several foster homes in the Philippines. Lily reported that she was verbally, physically and sexually abused in these foster homes. In 2001, Ms. Judith Basile brought her to the United States to be adopted; Lily was adopted when she was 12.
Court records further indicate that Lily started having behavioral problems at age 11. [*2]Records reflect that Child Protective Services has been involved with the family - 3 unfounded cases of physical abuse (12/06, 4/07 and 4/09) and one case was indicated (6/08). The records further reflect complaints of corporal punishment made by Lily against her mother, however,
she recanted her statements when she found out that her mother could lose her social work license.
In January 2007, Lily was hospitalized at Four Winds Hospital; she was diagnosed with Mood Disorder NOS and ADHD (she was initially diagnosed with ADHD in 3rd grade). In April 25, 2007, Lily was hospitalized again for a period of approximately 2 months at Four Winds Hospital. During this hospitalization she was diagnosed with Mood Disorder NOS and Conduct Disorder. Lily reported that she was once sent by the school to St. Vincent's Hospital, however, her mother refused to have her admitted.
Reports submitted to the court indicate that Lily has been prescribed numerous medications. While there is a reported history of medication non-compliance on Lily's part, records also indicate that Defendant's mother did not always refill her prescriptions. A court ordered investigation dated April 5, 2010 revealed that Lily's therapist opined that "Lily Basile requires kind but firm guidance that she is not receiving from her mother." Court Ordered Investigation, dated April 5, 2010, p.2.
With respect to the legal history of Defendant, a recitation of such history is relevant to the instant motion. The Court notes that all the criminal charges against Defendant arise out of disputes between Defendant and her mother; when incidents arise, the Defendant's mother either calls the police or drives Defendant to police station to press charges against her daughter in attempts to discipline Defendant.
On or about May 2007 until January 6, 2010, Defendant had been involved with the Family Court utilizing the services of the PINS (person in need of supervision) Diversion Program; two PINS petitions were also filed during this time. On or about January 6, 2010, Defendant was adjudicated a PINS and placed on a 1 year probationary period. On February 5, 2010, the Probation Department filed a violation petition. During the pendency of this violation petition, Defendant was arrested for allegedly committing the crime of Grand Larceny in the 4th Degree on June 19, 2010; a temporary order of protection was issued on behalf of Defendant's mother. On June 29, 2010, the Probation Department filed another violation petition. On July 21, 2010 all matters (pending criminal charges and pending family court violation of PINS probation petitions) were removed from their respective courts and transferred to the Integrated Youth Court (IYC).
A review of the chronology of the appearances before the IYC reveals that on July 28, 2010 a curfew was imposed by the IYC court and the temporary order of protection on behalf of Defendant's mother was extended. At the next court appearance on August 25, 2010, the record reflects that Defendant's mother was requesting that Defendant be remanded to non-secure detention (NSD) under the PINS violation of probation petition. The court denied the Defendant's mother request and did not remand Defendant. On or about October 4, 2010, an incident occurred between Defendant and her mother; Defendant was arrested for Criminal Contempt in the First Degree for violating the temporary order of protection that was previously issued on behalf of her mother. On October 6, 2010, the court remanded Defendant to NSD; after approximately 2 weeks in NSD, Defendant was returned home. On December 8, 2010, the [*3]court was informed that there was yet another incident between Defendant and her mother and Defendant did not want to go home with her mother; Defendant was again remanded to NSD. On December 14, 2010, Defendant was released to a family friend. After a brief period, Defendant returned to live with her mother, the court file is unclear as to what date Defendant returned home.
On March 16, 2011, all criminal charges were reduced; Defendant plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct in satisfaction of all criminal charges against Defendant and was sentenced to a 1 year conditional discharge. On that date, during court proceedings, Defendant's mother became disruptive, overly emotional and abruptly left the court room, despite the fact that the court proceedings had not concluded. On the following court date, March 29, 2011, Defendant's mother refused to come to court; the Court was informed that Defendant was driven by her mother to court, but Defendant's mother refused to stay.
On April 15, 2011, the Court appointed a social worker to assist the family and to help ameliorate their volatile relationship. On June 2, 2011, the appointed social worker and Probation Department informed the Court that the family dynamics still continued to be stressed; Defendant was scheduled to take New York State Regents exams during the following weeks. Despite pleas from Defendant, counsel and the Court, Defendant's mother refused to take Defendant home and Defendant was remanded to NSD. On June 9, 2011, Defendant was released to her mother.
On June 15, 2011, during the late evening hours, again, another verbal dispute ensued between Defendant and her mother. Allegedly, Defendant's mother claimed that Defendant stole $120 from her. However, the supporting deposition relevant to the instant charges states as follows:
"I Judith Basile (xx/xx/xx) was at home with my daughter Lily at 11 pm. She gave me $120 she owed me for the cable bill which I left on the bed. She was being irritable and demanding and insisting I put the fan in her room. When I said no she took the money which I had left on my bed and refused to return it to me." Supporting Deposition, dated June 16, 2011.
Despite the intervention and advise from the court appointed social worker, who was texting Defendant and Defendant's mother as the events of that evening unfolded, Defendant's mother called the Yonkers police and had Defendant arrested again for Criminal Contempt in the First Degree (PL § 215.51). This arrest resulted in Defendant being unable to take one of the Regents exams; Defendant's mother was aware that Defendant was scheduled to take that test on June 16, 2011.
Defendant was adjudicated a person in need of supervision (PINS) on June 30, 2011 and is presently placed in the care and custody of the Westchester Department of Social Services (DSS).
On September 15, 2011, the People reduced the charges from Criminal Contempt in the First Degree to Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree. This June 15, 2011 arrest for criminal contempt charges is the basis for the instant motion. Defendant has now filed the instant motion to dismiss in the interests of justice; the People oppose Defendant's motion in its entirety.
A motion to dismiss in the interest of justice, more commonly referred to as a Clayton motion, grants a court the discretion to dismiss an accusatory instrument if a court finds that the [*4]"ends of justice would be served by the termination of the prosecution. Indeed, it has been stated that the use of the statute depend[s] only on principles of justice, not on the legal or factual merits of the charge or even on the guilt or innocence of the defendant." People v. Clayton, 41 AD2d 204 at 206, 342 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2nd Dep't 1973)(cites omitted). A balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the State must be maintained in considering the factors set forth by CPL § 170.40 when a court considers a motion to dismiss in the interest of justice. Thus, a court has the discretion to dismiss a non-felony criminal court accusatory instrument in the furtherance of justice even when there is no basis for such dismissal as a matter of law. CPL § 170.40. While the court has discretion, the court must find some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant would constitute or result in injustice. The statute does not require that the court engage in a lengthy and detailed discussion of all statutory factors. People v. Rickert, 58 NY2d 122, 446 N.E.2d 419 (1983).
Clearly, this is a case where no useful purpose to society will be served by the continuance of this prosecution. In fact, quite the contrary. The Court has been able to observe the parties' demeanor, attitudes and behaviors during the pendency of this lengthy case. It is clear to this Court that in frustration with Defendant's behavior, Defendant's mother sought the assistance of the court and law enforcement. However, it is also clear to the Court that when Defendant's mother is "not getting her way", she uses law enforcement and the courts in an attempt to "discipline" Defendant or in an attempt to collect alleged "monetary debts" from Defendant.
Despite seeking the Court's intervention, Defendant's mother also has been uncooperative. In the past she has refused to come to Court and in one instance she left the court room before the proceedings were concluded. Further, despite numerous efforts and requests from the group home where Defendant is placed and the Probation Department, Defendant's mother failed to timely provide health insurance information for Lily. Further, there were concerns that since Lily was in placement, Defendant's mother would attempt to remove Lily from her health insurance. Given the Court's observations of Defendant's mother throughout these proceedings, the Court felt compelled to issue an order preventing Defendant's mother from removing Lily from her health insurance.
A Clayton motion should only be granted where a defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a compelling reason exists to warrant dismissal in the interests of justice. People v. Recco, 24 Misc 3d 1231(A), 899 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Nassau County 2009).Defendant in this case has met her burden.
The Court has considered the relevant Clayton factors. The Court finds that while violating terms of an order of protection is a serious crime, no harm was caused to Defendant's mother, physical or otherwise. The evidence of Defendant's guilt is suspect at best and, the court records tend to indicate that it was, perhaps, the Defendant's mother who instigated the incident. The history and character of Defendant has been discussed above - she is an 18 year old young woman who was abandoned in the Philippines, abused in the Philippines, brought and adopted in the United States, had limited English skills and was diagnosed with mood disorders, ADHD and had 2 psychiatric hospitalizations. She is a young woman needing help and guidance, not a criminal sentence or conviction. As such, the Court strongly opines that there would be no [*5]purpose of imposing upon this particular Defendant any criminal sentence. The confidence of the public in the criminal justice system would be negatively impacted if this particular Defendant was imposed a criminal sentence. Finally, the safety of the community would not be affected as the incidents were only between mother and daughter.
Defendant is a bright young woman with a strong desire to succeed. Her efforts to succeed must be rewarded, not thwarted. When Defendant was remanded to NSD, she fell behind in her school work. This Defendant paid for her own tutor to help her catch up with her school work. And even during the most tumultuous moments during this case, Defendant successfully held 2 jobs - at Sedutto's (a local ice cream shop) and babysitting. She clearly has the drive to be a responsible and productive member of our society.
Placing youth away from their homes should be the last resort. However, for Lily, being placed in a group home has been a positive influence; the Court notes that her emotional, psychological and educational needs are being met. In fact, the Court has not been advised of any conflicts between Lily and her mother in the past several months since her placement; previously, conflicts between Lily and her mother were an almost daily occurrence. In fact, the Court notes that Lily's courtroom demeanor changed through the pendency of this case - from an angry youth to a happy teenager.
Criminal court's primary purpose is to punish the offending behavior; family court's purpose is to stop the behavior. The Integrated Youth Court model was able to address offending behavior committed by adolescents, not solely through punitive dispositions, but also the youth (and their families) were empowered to "stop" their behavior instead of punishing their behavior. This was accomplished by providing services such as a court appointed social worker, intensive Probation supervision, weekly to monthly compliance conferences and in cases where the youth had to be placed outside of their homes, they were able to be placed in the care and custody of Westchester Department of Social Services (i.e. group home or other similar facilities) instead of being incarcerated.
In Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 at 116, 102 S. Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1(1982), the Supreme Court recognized that:
"Youth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage. Our history is replete with laws and judicial recognition that minors, especially in their earlier year, generally are less mature and responsible than adults. Particularly during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment expected of adults."
This Court invites the Legislature to re-examine our criminal statutes that criminalize 16 - 18 adolescent behavior as harshly as an adult and establish a model similar to that of a family court model. The Integrated Youth Court had many success stories; all involved - - from the District Attorney's Office, Legal Aid Society, Probation Department, court appointed social worker, Attorney for the Child and Court staff, worked closely and tirelessly to help the youth that came before it to stop the offending behavior and provide them with treatment and services to enable them to become productive adults.
Accordingly, pursuant to CPL § 170.40., the instant accusatory instrument, Docket Number 07015M-11 is hereby dismissed in its entirety in the interests of justice. [*6]
The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of the Court.
Dated:_____________________________
White Plains, New YorkHon. Kathie E. Davidson
Distribution List:
ADA Jamie Fair
Legal Aid Society - Mary Pat Long, Esq.
David Peck, Esq.
Elias Gootzeit, Esq.
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.
