Opinion
No. 2012–474KCR.
2014-10-29
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. SAMANTHA R. (Anonymous), Respondent.
Present: WESTON, J.P., SOLOMON and ELLIOT, JJ.
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 N.Y. 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 A.D.2d 204 [1973] ), the accusatory instrument was dismissed in the interest of justice (33 Misc.3d 1235[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 52245[U] [2011]; see CPL 170.30[1][g]; 170.40[1]; People v. Wingard, 33 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 861 [1995]; People v. Herman L., 83 N.Y.2d 958 [1994]; People v. Rickert, 58 N.Y.2d 122 [1983] ). The court sufficiently addressed all of the factors enumerated in CPL 170.40(1) ( cf. People v. Berrus, 1 N.Y.3d 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 N.Y.2d at 132, 459 N.Y.S.2d 734, 446 N.E.2d 419), and upon “a sensitive balancing of the interests of the individual against the competing interests of the public” ( People v. Debiasi, 160 A.D.2d 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.