People v. Jackson
Decision Date | 01 February 2011 |
Citation | 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 21475,35 Misc.3d 179,938 N.Y.S.2d 726 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Melisa JACKSON, Defendant. |
Court | New York Criminal Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ADA Kevin S. Richardson, Kings County District Attorney's Office, for the People.
Benjamin Heinrich, P.C., for the defendant.
The defendant, Melisa Jackson, is charged with one count of Official Misconduct (Penal Law [“PL”] § 195.00(2)).
The defendant has moved for an order granting dismissal of the aforesaid charge against her pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law [“CPL”] § 100.15(3) for facial insufficiency. The People oppose the defendant's motion.
For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion is denied.
On October 12, 2010, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating PL § 195.00(2). On the same date, the defendant was arraigned on a misdemeanor complaint, charging her with Official Misconduct, which allegedly occurred on or about December 9, 2009, at approximately 9:00–9:15 a.m., at 1 Metrotech Center, Kings County, New York. The complaint alleges the following:
“... the informant [Lourdes Colon] was working at the ground floor of the above location, an Au Bon Pain Restaurant, and observed her co-worker, Eutish Rennix, who informant knew to be approximately six (6) months pregnant, complaining of severe abdominal pain and difficulty breathing. The informant further states that she and another co-worker did then escort Eutisha Rennix to a rear room inside of the above-mentioned location, where Eutisha Rennix continued to complain of severe abdominal pains and increased difficulty breathing.
“... informant [Colon] did return to the front area of the above location, where she observed the defendant Jackson and Jason Green inside the location, and that defendant Jackson and Jason Green were both dressed in the uniform of a New York City Fire Department–Emergency Medical Technician. Further, the informant states that she informed defendant Jackson and Jason Green that Eutisha Rennix was pregnant and having an asthma attack, and that the informant requested that they call an ambulance for her. Informant further states that she returned to the rear room to continue to assist Eutisha Rennix, and that neither defendant Jackson nor Jason Green entered the rear room to provide aid or assistance to Eutisha Rennix.
“... at the above time and place, informant [Grena Louisma] was working as a cashier in the above-mentioned Au Bon Pain Restaurant and that informant observed her co-worker, Eutisha Rennix, begin to complain of not feeling well and that Eutisha Rennix, began to cough uncontrollably, whereafter, the informant observed Eutisha Rennix go into a rear room at the location.
“... following the above-described observations regarding Eutisha Rennix, informant [Louisma] observed defendant Jackson and Jason Green standing in line at the informant's cashier station, waiting to pay for purchases, and that both defendant Jackson and Jason Green were wearing the uniform of a New York City Fire Department—Emergency Medical Technician. Further, informant Louisma did observe informant Colon approach the defendant and Jason Green and did hear informant Colon request their help and did further hear informant Colon inform defendant Jackson and Jason Green that Eutisha Rennix was in the rear room suffering from an asthma attack and that Rennix was pregnant. “... following the request for their assistance made by informant Colon, detailed in the paragraph above, informant Louisma observed defendant Jackson and Jason Green continue to remain in the cashier's line, and that defendant Jackson did use her cellular telephone while paying for her purchases, whereafter defendant Jackson and Jason Green did leave the location without ever going into the rear room where Eutisha Rennix was located.
“... [Abdo Nahmod, Deputy Assistant Chief–New York City Fire Department—Emergency Medical Dispatch Center, located on the upper floors of 1 Metrotech Center] [ ... ] has reviewed the official records of the New York City Fired Department, including recordings of telephone calls received by the Medical Dispatch Center and building security video of 1 Metro Tech Center, recorded and maintained by the Fire Department, and that, as a Deputy Assistant Chief, he is a custodian of said records and is qualified to read and interpret the contents thereof.
“Based upon that review, informant Nahmod states the following: That, at the above mentioned date and time, defendant Melissa Jackson and Jason Green were both employed by the New York City Fire Department as certified Emergency Medical Technicians, and that both defendant Jackson and Green were on-duty and assigned to the Emergency Medical Dispatch Center located within 1 Metro Tech Center; that, from a review of security video taken on the above-mentioned date and time, both Jackson and Green were wearing the uniform of an Emergency Medical Technician of the Fire Department of the City of New York on that date; that, at approximately 09:13 AM, a telephone call was received and recorded by the Emergency Medical Dispatch Center from defendant Jackson, who identified herself by name and identification number, requesting that an ambulance respond to the above location for a female/pregnant/don't know age/trouble breathing,' whereafter, according to the above-mentioned video surveillance records, at approximately 09:14 AM, defendant Jackson and Green re-entered into the Emergency Medical Dispatch Center.
“... informant Nahmod [ ... ] has reviewed and is familiar with the operations guide of the Emergency Medical Service Command of the New York City Fire Department, which applies to defendant Jackson and to Jason Green as Emergency Medical Technicians with the Fire Department of the City of New York, and that said guide requires that all on-duty Emergency Medical Technicians must, when flagged down for assistance, acknowledge and provide treatment, as well as notify the Emergency Medical Dispatch Command of the situation.”
On October 15, 2010, the People served and filed off-calendar a Statement of Readiness, along with supporting depositions by informants Lourdes Colon, Grena Louisma, and Abdo Nahmod.
On November 29, 2010, defense counsel filed the instant motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency.
Defense counsel contends that the People have failed to comply with the requirements of CPL § 100.15(3) and People v. Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133, 511 N.E.2d 71, 517 N.Y.S.2d 927 (1987). He argues that the complaint lacks any factual assertion that supports the three elements of the PL § 195.00(2) charge. Defense concedes the following: (1) the defendant was a public servant on duty at the time of the alleged offense; (2) informant Lourdes Colon requested that the defendant call an ambulance; (3) the defendant did, in fact, place a call to the Emergency Medical Dispatch Center, during which she identified herself by name and identification number, and requested that an ambulance respond to the location; (4) the defendant was not on an authorized break at the time; and (5) the Operations Guide of the Emergency Medical Service Command of the New York City Fire Department requires that all on-duty emergency medical technicians must, when flagged down for assistance, acknowledge and provide treatment, as well as notify the emergency medical dispatch command of the situation.
However, defense counsel contends that there is no statement in the complaint asserting what duty the defendant “knowingly” refrained from performing.
Defense counsel also contends that the complaint alleges no facts to support the element, “intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit.” Defense argues that the defendant's alleged failure to act by providing treatment does not amount to her seeking to obtain a benefit.
The People argue that the complaint is facially sufficient with respect to the charge of Official Misconduct, PL § 195.00(2). They argue that the complaint sufficiently establishes on its face that the defendant failed to perform her duties by providing treatment, as prescribed in the Operations Guide, and that in failing to do so, she acted knowingly. They argue that the knowing element was established by the fact that the defendant herself telephoned the Emergency Medical Dispatch Command; had she been unaware of the duties imposed upon her (to contact the Command Center and provide treatment), she would have simply verified whether anyone else present in the restaurant had telephoned the 911 operator.
The People also argue that the complaint sufficiently alleges that the defendant failed to comply with her duty “with the intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit.” They state that the defendant intentionally failed to provide treatment in order to hide the fact that she had abandoned her assigned duty station by going on an unauthorized break.
At issue is whether the information was facially sufficient with respect to the charge of Official Misconduct, PL § 195.00(2).
To be facially sufficient, an accusatory instrument must (1) allege non-hearsay facts that would give the court reasonable cause to believe that a defendant committed the offense charged and (2) establish, if true, every element of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Castaldo
...in the nature of the office" (People v. Lynch, 176 Misc.2d 430, 433, 674 N.Y.S.2d 894 [Rockland County Ct.] ; see People v. Jackson, 35 Misc.3d 179, 187–188, 938 N.Y.S.2d 726 ; People v. Ridge, 25 Misc.3d 432, 439, 887 N.Y.S.2d 811 [Nassau Dist. Ct.] ). "Good faith but honest errors in fulf......
-
People v. Malki
...but there is no requirement that the instrument spell out which factual allegations constitute the benefit. See People v. Jackson, 35 Misc.3d 179, 938 N.Y.S.2d 726 (Kings Co.Crim. Ct., 2011). As held by the County Court in People v. D'Arcy, 79 Misc.2d 113, 122, 359 N.Y.S.2d 453 (Allegany Co......
-
People v. Snowden, 156S–2014.
...of the act itself, as well as from the defendant's conduct and the surrounding circumstances. (See also People v. Jackson, 35 Misc.3d 179, 186 (N.Y. City Crim CT 2011). In the instant case there is no direct evidence of the defendant's mental state, but the jury may infer the mens rea to re......
- Rooney v. Rooney