People v Sato

[*1] People v Sato 2007 NY Slip Op 52085(U) [17 Misc 3d 1120(A)] Decided on October 24, 2007 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 October 24, 2007
Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

The People of the State of New York

against

Saori Sato, Defendant.



2007CN004865



for Defendant:

Chunyu Jean Wang, Esq., 36-25 Main St., Ste 3A

Flushing, NY 11354

718-353-9264

for the People:

NY County District Attorney

by ADA Andrew Warshawer

One Hogan Place

NY NY 10013

212 335 4227

Richard M. Weinberg, J.

Defendant is charged with one count of Prostitution (Penal Law §230.00). She moves for an order dismissing the information in the interest of justice pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 170.40. This discretionary provision permits a dismissal where there exists some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution would constitute an injustice.

Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because "prostitution is a victimless crime in which two equal contracting parties negotiate for the performance of an act proscribed in private by consenting adults". This argument, if it were adopted, would compel the Court to dismiss every prostitution case on its docket and would require the Court to improperly substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature. Furthermore, to argue that Prostitution is a victimless crime overlooks the impact that this activity may have on the health of the participants as well as innocent third parties and on the viability of neighborhoods where this activity occurs. To characterize the alleged transaction as a simple contract negotiation between equals ignores the reality that the circumstances of the parties are often quite disparate. [*2]

Contrary to defendant's assertion that the People lack any evidence "other than checkmarks on a pre-printed form", this is a case that involves a trained undercover police officer who was a participant in the alleged transaction.

Defendant urges dismissal since this is her first arrest. The fact that defendant has no criminal history is not, by itself, a compelling ground for dismissal. People v Reyes, 174 AD2d 87 (1st Dept 1980).

The argument that defendant has already been sufficiently punished because she was incarcerated between her arrest and arraignment could be raised by anyone arrested for a crime of similar seriousness. Prostitution is a B misdemeanor punishable by up to three months imprisonment. The fact that defendant was subjected to a brief period of pre-arraignment detention does not render the imposition of additional punishment an injustice. The Court notes that defendant rejected at her arraignment an offer of a plea to a non-criminal offense and an alternative sentence of five sessions of prostitution counseling.

While defendant asserts that her arrest was unlawful" and that the charge is "unfounded", there is no specific articulation of any serious police misconduct. Whether the charge of prostitution is "unfounded" is a question of fact to be resolved at trial.

Defendant finally argues that, since prostitution is a non-violent crime, the public interest would be served best by defendant's rehabilitation rather than continued prosecution. The Court simply notes that defendant was offered, and rejected, an opportunity for rehabilitation. This prosecution continues because of her rejection of that opportunity.

After both individual and collective consideration of the statutory criteria and defendant's arguments, the Court finds no basis upon which to dismiss in the interest of justice.

Defendant's motion is hereby denied.

Dated:______________________________

NEW YORK, NEW YORKJudge of the Criminal Court