People v Samantha R.

[*1] People v Samantha R. 2014 NY Slip Op 51579(U) Decided on October 29, 2014 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2012-474 K CR

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Samantha R. (ANONYMOUS), Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.; Op 33 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52245[U]), dated December 16, 2011. The order, on the court's own motion, dismissed the accusatory instrument in the interest of justice.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

The People charged defendant with loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution (Penal Law § 240.37 [2]). Upon motion by the court (see CPL 170.40 [2]), and after the parties had been afforded an opportunity to respond in writing (see People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204 [1973]), the accusatory instrument was dismissed in the interest of justice (33 Misc 3d 1235[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52245[U] [2011]; see CPL 170.30 [1] [g]; 170.40 [1]; People v Wingard, 33 NY2d 192 [1973]).

Upon a review of the record and the factors set forth in CPL 170.40 (1), we find that the Criminal Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the accusatory instrument in the interest of justice (see generally People v Colon, 86 NY2d 861 [1995]; People v Herman L., 83 NY2d 958 [1994]; People v Rickert, 58 NY2d 122 [1983]). The court sufficiently addressed all of the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40 (1) (cf. People v Berrus, 1 NY3d 535 [2003] [although dismissal may have been warranted, reversal was required where the record failed to indicate that the court took into consideration relevant factors]), and we conclude that the grounds set forth by the court, "considered collectively as well as individually" (People v Rickert, 58 NY2d at 132), and upon "a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual against the competing interests of the public" (People v Debiasi, 160 AD2d 952, 953 [1990]), justified the court's dismissal. The Criminal Court could properly determine that, based on all of the circumstances presented, prosecution or conviction of this defendant, who was 16 years old when charged and who had no prior involvement with the criminal justice system, upon this accusatory instrument, charging a violation, would result in an injustice (see CPL 170.40 [1]). We note, however, that, to the extent that the Criminal Court's determination can be interpreted to mean that a 16 year old can never be prosecuted for this offense in the Criminal Court, we do not subscribe to that position.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Solomon and Elliot, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: October 29, 2014