People v. Connolly

• Decision Date: 09 November 2012
• Citation: 100 A.D.3d 1419,953 N.Y.S.2d 784,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07482
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan J. CONNOLLY, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 1419

953 N.Y.S.2d 784

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07482

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jonathan J. CONNOLLY, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Nov. 9, 2012.

Bridget L. Field, Rochester, for Defendant–Appellant.

Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant appeals from an order of restitution that was entered following a hearing. We note at the outset that, because County Court bifurcated the sentencing proceeding by severing the issue of restitution for a separate hearing, defendant properly appeals as of right from the order of restitution ( see People v. Brusie, 70 A.D.3d 1395, 1396, 897 N.Y.S.2d 319). As the People correctly concede, the court erred in delegating its responsibility to conduct the restitution hearing to a judicial hearing officer (JHO) ( see People v. Joseph, 90 A.D.3d 1646, 1647, 935 N.Y.S.2d 808). We therefore modify the order by vacating the amount of restitution ordered, and we remit the matter to County Court for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution ( see id.). Defendant further contends that the People should not be given another opportunity to present evidence in support of the victim's request for restitution. We reject that contention. Penal Law § 60.27(1) provides that, where “the victim seeks restitution or reparation, the court shall require, unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise, ... that the defendant make restitution of the fruits of the offense and reparation for the actual out-of-pocket loss” (emphasis added). The mandatory language of that statute expresses the longstanding policy of “seeking to ensure that an offender's punishment includes making the victim whole”( People v. Tzitzikalakis, 8 N.Y.3d 217, 220, 832 N.Y.S.2d 120, 864 N.E.2d 44). We conclude that it would be contrary to that policy and fundamentally unfair to the People and the victim to deprive the People of the opportunity to present evidence in support of the victim's request for restitution based upon the error of the court in delegating its responsibility to conduct a restitution hearing to the JHO. Defendant's further challenges to the JHO's findings and the sufficiency of the People's evidence are not preserved for our review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Snyder, 38 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 832 N.Y.S.2d...