People v. Brennan, 2022-50163

CourtNew York Justice Court
Writing for the CourtMarc R. Ruby, J.
Docket Number2022-50163,Case 21-070038
PartiesPeople of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Steven Brennan, Defendant.
Decision Date16 February 2022

People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

Steven Brennan, Defendant.

No. 2022-50163

Case No. 21-070038

Justice Court of the Village of Piermont, Rockland County

February 16, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

For the People:

Rockland County A.D.A Renanda N. Lewis

Rockland County A.D.A. Dijonnae S. Samuels

For the Defense:

Christopher M. Waters, Esq.

Marc R. Ruby, J.


This action commenced on, or about July 14, 2021, with the filing of a violation information, accusing the Defendant, and his co-defendant [1] thereunder, of contravening NY PENAL LAW § 240.26(3) (2nd degree harassment). On October 6, 2021, the action was unconditionally adjourned in contemplation of dismissal ("ACD"). Before the adjournment matured into a dismissal, the People filed a procedural motion under NY CRIM PROC. LAW § 170.55(2), seeking an order restoring the case to the calendar, following the Defendant's arraignment on a Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass charge. For the reasons discussed herein, the People's application is denied.

I. Factual Background

On July 14, 2021, Defendant was charged under a violation information, with second degree harassment, in contravention of NY PENAL LAW § 240.26(3). The People's restoration application claims the Defendant looked inside a window of the complainant's residence, yelled at her, and created disturbances from his upstairs living quarters. On October 6, 2021, this court ordered the case ACD'd, under NY CRIM PROC. LAW § 170.55.

On January 11, 2022, during the ACD's pendency, the Defendant was charged with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, in contravention of NY PENAL LAW § 140.15(1). Like the violation charge, the misdemeanor charge arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct, relating to the complaint's residence-namely entering and remaining unlawfully therein. At the Defendant's arraignment on the misdemeanor charge, both the People, and the Defendant were harmonious inasmuch as the violation charge had been ACD'd without condition. The following day, the People filed the instant restoration application.

II. The People's Position

The People contend this case should be restored to the calendar. The corresponding motion recounts the procedural posture of the dual charges, contends dismissal would not be in the interest of justice, and prays for an order restoring the ACD'd violation to the calendar for further proceedings.

III. The Defense's Position

Although the Defendant did not oppose the People's motion, his position can be gleaned from his filing a motion to dismiss the underlying accusatory instrument.

IV. Legal Discussion

Analysis begins with pertinent parts of NY CRIM PROC. LAW § 170.55, stating:

§ 170.55(1) [...] after arraignment in a local criminal court upon an information [ ], and before entry of a plea of guilty thereto or commencement of a trial thereof, the court may, upon motion of the people or the defendant and with the consent of the other party, or upon the court's own motion with the consent of both the people and the defendant order that the action be "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," as prescribed in [ ]
§ 170.55(2) An adjournment in contemplation of dismissal is an adjournment of the action without date ordered with a view to ultimate dismissal of the accusatory instrument in furtherance of justice. Upon issuing such an order, the court must release the defendant on his own recognizance. Upon application of the people, made at any time

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT