People v. Brown

• Decision Date: 17 June 1996
• Citation: 168 Misc.2d 923,646 N.Y.S.2d 241
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Charles BROWN, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 241

646 N.Y.S.2d 241

168 Misc.2d 923

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Charles BROWN, Defendant.

City Court of Rochester, Monroe County.

June 17, 1996.

Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender of Monroe County, Rochester (Timothy S. Davis of counsel), for defendant.

Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County, Rochester (Brett Granville of counsel), for plaintiff.

ANN E. PFEIFFER, Judge.

Defendant is charged with petit larceny arising from an incident that occurred on February 24, 1996. Defendant has moved for preclusion of his statement and identification testimony, arguing that the People have failed to serve a timely notice of their intention to use such evidence as required by CPL § 710.30. The People contend that they served such notice within the time limit delineated by CPL Article 710. The facts are undisputed.

On February 27, 1996, defendant appeared before this Court to be arraigned on the information. On that date, a financial assessment was completed revealing that defendant was indigent and, at the time of arraignment, the Monroe County Public Defender's Office was assigned to represent the defendant. A representative of the Public Defender's Office appeared with defendant in court at arraignment.

Within fifteen days after arraignment, the People served defendant with a CPL § 710.30 notice of their intention to introduce defendant's written statement at trial. This notice was served by mailing it to defendant's home address. A copy of the notice was not delivered to defense counsel at arraignment nor was defense counsel mailed a copy of the notice that was mailed to defendant.

Defendant, in his omnibus motions, moved for an order precluding the use of his statement as well as any identification testimony, arguing that the People failed to timely serve a CPL § 710.30 notice. Defendant attached to his motion papers a copy of the information, the last paragraph of which begins "Please take notice that the People intend to offer at the trial of the defendant(s):", then includes two statements which may be checked off, one referring to evidence of a statement made by the defendant, the other referring to evidence relating to an identification of the defendant. Neither of these statements were checked off on the copy of the information attached to defendant's motion papers. Defendant also attached to his motion papers a copy of a written statement allegedly made by him to a Rochester Police Officer.

The People, in their responding affirmation, argue that they do not intend to introduce any identification evidence at trial, and further, that although they believe defendant's statement to be admissible, they do not oppose a Huntley hearing on this issue. Their responding affirmation does not address defendant's motion for preclusion.

At oral argument of the motions, defense counsel argued that he was never served with a copy of the 710.30 notice, either personally at the time of arraignment, or by mail within 15 days following arraignment. The People argued that their 710.30 notice was served within 15 days of the date of arraignment by mailing it to the defendant's home address; they did not allege that a copy was either delivered or mailed to defense counsel. Defendant argues that the People may not personally serve him with a CPL § 710.30 notice after he is represented by counsel, that such service is insufficient to satisfy the People's statutory obligation, and that preclusion should therefore be granted. The People argue that service on the defendant personally resulted in actual notice, was therefore sufficient service, and preclusion should therefore be denied.

Where the People intend to introduce at trial evidence of a statement made by defendant to law enforcement officers, they must, no later than 15 days after arraignment, serve defendant with a notice of intention to use such evidence and, if they fail to serve timely notice or demonstrate good cause for untimely service, may not introduce such evidence in their case in chief (CPL § 710.30; see, People v. Degrijze, 194 A.D.2d 801, 599 N.Y.S.2d 634, cert. denied, 82 N.Y.2d 753, 603 N.Y.S.2d 994, 624 N.E.2d 180). The question in this case is whether personal service on a defendant who is represented by counsel satisfies this notice requirement. For the reasons set forth below, this Court holds that it does not.

There can be no question that when a party is represented by counsel in a pending action, papers to be served on the party must be served not upon the party directly, but upon the party's attorney, in the absence of a law, court order, or agreement providing otherwise (CPLR 2103[b]; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104[A][1] [22 NYCRR 1200.35(a)(1) ]; see, Stagg v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 162 A.D.2d 595, 556 N.Y.S.2d 779; 1134 East Corporation v. New York State Liquor Authority, 58 Misc.2d 217, 295 N.Y.S.2d 27; see also, Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 370, 559 N.Y.S.2d 493, 558 N.E.2d 1030; People v. White, 115 A.D.2d 313, 496 N.Y.S.2d 187; Nestlerode v. Federal Insurance Company, 66 A.D.2d 504, 414 N.Y.S.2d 398, cert. denied, 48 N.Y.2d 604, 421 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 396 N.E.2d 487; Fusco v. City of Albany, 134 Misc.2d 98, 509 N.Y.S.2d 763; People v. Hall, 128 Misc.2d 7, 488 N.Y.S.2d 345).

It is equally clear that where a defendant in a criminal matter is represented, law enforcement officials may not communicate directly with the defendant relating to the subject of that representation in defense counsel's absence (see, e.g., People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011 [questioning of defendant]; People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18, 397 N.E.2d 709 [same]; People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 384 N.Y.S.2d 419, 348 N.E.2d 894 [same]; People v. Suarez, 167 Misc.2d 189, 638 N.Y.S.2d 1020 [service of supporting deposition on defendant]; People v. Rossi, 154 Misc.2d 616, 587 N.Y.S.2d 511 [same].

Only where a party has not appeared by counsel or the party's attorney cannot be served is service of papers in a pending action on a party permitted (see, CPLR 2103[c] ). In light of the above, once counsel has appeared for a defendant in a criminal proceeding, the requirement of CPL § 710.30(1) that the People serve their notice of intention to introduce evidence upon "the defendant" must be read to require that such service be made not on defendant personally, but on defense counsel. Any other construction would sanction a procedure which is contrary to clearly expressed legislative intent, well-settled case law, and the plain language of Disciplinary Rule 7-104 of...