People v Meehan (Sean)

[*1] People v Meehan (Sean) 2013 NY Slip Op 51651(U) Decided on October 7, 2013 Appellate Term, First Department 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 7, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
570603/10.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Sean Meehan, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Robert Straus, J.H.O.), rendered May 25, 2010, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of violating New York City Administrative Code § 19-176(b), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Robert Straus, J.H.O.), rendered May 25, 2010, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

In the absence of any record indicating that the adjudication of this criminal prosecution by a Judicial Hearing Officer (J.H.O.) was accompanied by the requisite statutory consent or "agreement of the parties" (CPL 350.20[1]), the conviction obtained below lacked an " essential jurisdictional predicate'" (People v Holt, 182 Misc 2d 919, 920 [1999], quoting Batista v Delbaum, Inc., 234 AD2d 45, 46 [1996]) and must be vacated (Holt at 920). Nor, on this record, can defendant's mere participation in the trial proceedings without formal objection be equated with the requisite "agreement" to a J.H.O. trial specified by CPL 350.20 (cf. People v Davis, 13 NY3d 17, 30-31 [2009][where "defense counsel participated fully in a trial held before a J.H.O. without objection and the Criminal Court file contains a J.H.O. consent form signed by defendant"]).

Since it does not appear that further proceedings on the single Administrative Code charge here involved would serve any useful penological purpose (see People v Burwell, 53 NY2d 849 [1981]), we dismiss the accusatory instrument.

We have considered and rejected defendant's jurisdictional argument.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: October 07, 2013