People v. Abrams

• Decision Date: 14 March 1973
• Citation: 341 N.Y.S.2d 515,73 Misc.2d 534
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Eugene ABRAMS, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 515

341 N.Y.S.2d 515

73 Misc.2d 534

PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Eugene ABRAMS, Defendant.

Nassau County Court, Special Term, Part I.

March 14, 1973.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for plaintiff.

Groman & Wolf, P.C., Carle Place, for defendant.

FRANK X. ALTIMARI, Judge.

This is an omnibus motion by the defendant for an Order 1) granting an inspection of the Grand Jury Minutes and 2) dismissing the indictment upon the ground that the Grand Jury lacked subject matter jurisdiction under several counts of the indictment, and that insufficient legal evidence was presented to the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for the following crimes:

                Rape in the First Degree            --   3 Counts
                Sodomy in the First Degree          --   5 Counts
                Sodomy in the Second Degree         --   1 Count
                Sexual Abuse in the First Degree    --   5 Counts
                Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree   --   3 Counts
                Incest                              --   1 Count
                Endangering the Welfare of a Minor  --  14 Counts
                Obscenity in the First Degree       --   4 Counts
                Obscenity in the Second Degree      --  43 Counts
                

The acts alleged in the indictment involve the commission by the defendant of sexual acts upon his infant daughter and other girls of tender years.

The defendant claims that the Grand Jury lacked jurisdiction to return an indictment for the crimes alleged in counts one through eleven and counts twenty-six through thirty-five. Those counts of the indictment set forth that the alleged victim was the defendant's daughter. He alleges that Article 10, section 1013(a), of the Family Court Act gives the Family Court exclusive original jurisdiction over the acts which involve abuse or neglect of a child.

The defendant herein relies upon the language of section 1013(a) of the Family Court Act. Section 1013(a) provides:

'The family court has Exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings under this article alleging the abuse or neglect of a child.' (Emphasis added).

The defendant then argues that the term, 'exclusive original jurisdiction', gives the family court the sole power to determine the future of the proceedings. The defendant relies on People v. Johnson, 20 N.Y.2d 220, 282 N.Y.S.2d 481, 229 N.E.2d 180 which interpreted section 812 of the Family Court Act which also contained the term 'exclusive original jurisdiction.'

However, one must examine the statutory language of sections 1011 through 1014 of the Family Court Act before interpreting the term, 'exclusive original jurisdiction'. Thus, section 1013 subd. (b) states:

'For the protection of children, the family court has jurisdiction over proceedings under this article Notwithstanding the fact that a criminal court also has or may be exercising jurisdiction over the facts alleged in the petition or complaint.' (Emphasis added).

Section 1014 subd. (a) provides that the family court may transfer after a hearing proceedings originated under Article 10 to the criminal court or to the District Attorney. Furthermore, section 1014 subdivision (b) provides that a criminal court May transfer a criminal complaint which alleges abuse or neglect of a child to the family court, unless the family court has transferred it to the criminal court. Finally, section 1014 subdivision (c) provides:

'Nothing in this article shall be interpreted to preclude concurrent proceedings in the family court and a criminal court.'

In People v. Johnson, supra, a case which interpreted Article 8 of the Family Court Act (Family Offenses), the court held that a county court did not have jurisdiction to try an indictment alleging an assault by a husband of his wife, without first having transferred the proceeding to the family court for initial determination. The court concluded that the family court Must make the initial decision as to which Tribunal should dispose of a family offense proceeding. The court, thus ruled that no court or other agency of government could interfere with the family court's exclusive original jurisdiction under Article 8 of the Family Court Act.

It should be noted that the language of the various sections under Article 8 is couched in mandatory terms. For example, Section 812 of the Family Court Act provides,

'The family court has exclusive original jurisdiction, . . ., over any proceeding concerning acts which would constitute disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, an assault or attempt assault between spouses or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household . . ..'

Section 813(a) states in part:

'Any criminal complaint charging disorderly conduct, harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, an assault or an attempt assault between spouses or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household Shall be transferred by the criminal court . . . to the family court . . .' (Emphasis added).

This court concludes, after reviewing the statutory language of Article 8 and Article 10 of the Family Court Act, that Article 8 declares that offenses arising from family conflict should be weighed initially by the Family Court with the view of counselling and preserving the family unit. People v. Williams, 24 N.Y.2d 274, 300 N.Y.S.2d 89, 248 N.E.2d 8. To accomplish such purpose the State Constitution and legislature vested the family court with the exclusive original jurisdiction of offenses such as assaultive or aggressive behavior by family members. It should be emphasized that offenses such...