Opinion
15934 Index No. 158224/20 Ind. Nos. 2522/18, 3638/18 Case No. 2021–01772
05-12-2022
In the Matter of SUN SURETY INSURANCE etc., Petitioner–Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent–Respondent.
Law Office of Evans D. Prieston, P.C., Long Island City (Evans D. Prieston of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John T. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
Law Office of Evans D. Prieston, P.C., Long Island City (Evans D. Prieston of counsel), for appellant.
Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John T. Hughes of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2021, which denied petitioner/surety's motion to vacate the bail forfeiture judgments, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Contrary to surety's claim that the court made no "determination on the record directing forfeiture of the bail bond" ( People v. Nicholas, 97 N.Y.2d 24, 25–26, 734 N.Y.S.2d 557, 760 N.E.2d 345 [2001] ), a valid forfeiture existed when the court issued two written bail forfeiture orders on September 24, 2019, after its client Curtis Postell a defendant in an underlying proceeding, failed to appear at his sentencing earlier that day, based upon its finding that his absence was without excuse as reflected in the minutes of that day's proceeding. The People then proceeded against surety in accordance with CPL 540.10. Accordingly, the forfeitures were validly entered (see People v. Horn, 166 A.D.3d 537, 89 N.Y.S.3d 133 [1st Dept. 2018], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 903, 2019 WL 5558957 [2019] ), and the court providently exercised its discretion pursuant to CPLR 5015 in denying surety's motion to vacate them (see generally Nash v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 22 N.Y.3d 220, 225, 980 N.Y.S.2d 880, 3 N.E.3d 1128 [2013] ).