People v Mandel (Richard)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Mandel (Richard) 2017 NY Slip Op 50329(U) Decided on March 20, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 March 20, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Schoenfeld, J.P., Shulman, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
571191/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Richard Mandel, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from that portion of an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), dated September 5, 2014, which denied his motion for an order conditionally sealing the record of a judgment of the same court, rendered June 30, 2000, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to time served.

Per Curiam.

Order (Tamiko A. Amaker, J.), dated September 5, 2014, affirmed.

Inasmuch as defendant's 2000 conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (see Penal Law § 220.03) was not a conviction that "resulted in defendant's participation in [a] judicially sanctioned drug treatment program" (CPL 160.58[2]), he was not entitled to conditional sealing of the records of that conviction, notwithstanding that he successfully completed drug treatment on an earlier (1998) conviction for the same offense and the court sealed the records of that earlier conviction. The statutory language quoted above specifically limits sealing to the particular case in which a defendant completes drug treatment (see People v J.G., 136 AD3d 449 [2016]). Nor was defendant's 2000 conviction eligible to be sealed as a "prior eligible misdemeanor[]" pursuant to CPL 160.58(2), since it obviously was not "prior" to his 1998 conviction that the court sealed.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 20, 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.