People v. Jang

• Decision Date: 25 April 2005
• Docket Number: 2004-03265.
• Citation: 17 A.D.3d 693,2005 NY Slip Op 03257,793 N.Y.S.2d 540
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EUN SIL JANG, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

17 A.D.3d 693

793 N.Y.S.2d 540

2005 NY Slip Op 03257

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v.EUN SIL JANG, Appellant.

2004-03265.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

April 25, 2005.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered March 23, 2004, convicting her of unauthorized practice of a profession (seeEducation Law § 6512 [1]), upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, Education Law § 6512 (1) is not unconstitutionally vague.The statute provides a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to know the conduct that is proscribed and contains clear standards for enforcement (seeCounty of Nassau v Canavan,1 NY3d 134, 138[2003];People v Stuart,100 NY2d 412, 418[2003];People v Foley,94 NY2d 668, 680[2000]).

The County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was for release of the grand jury minutes, as she failed to demonstrate a compelling and particularized need for their production (seeCPL 190.25 [4][a]; 210.30 [3];People v Robinson,98 NY2d 755, 757[2002];People v Fetcho,91 NY2d 765, 769[1998]).

By pleading guilty, the defendant waived her claim that the evidence submitted to the grand jury was insufficient to support the indictment (seePeople v Kennington,283 AD2d 658[2001];People v Caleca,273 AD2d 476[2000]).In any event, we agree with the People that the evidence before the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish the elements of unauthorized practice of massage therapy (seeEducation Law § 6512 [1];§ 7801;People v Gordon,88 NY2d 92, 95[1996];People v Galatro,84 NY2d 160, 163[1994];People v Mayer,1 AD3d 461, 463[2003];People v Franklin,305 AD2d 613[2003]).

The County Court also properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the grand jury was defective (seeCPL 210.20 [1][c]; 210.35 [2], [3]) and impaired (seeCPL 210.35 [5]).The People's submission of the minutes and attendance sheet for August 14, 2003, confirmed that an adequate number of jurors were present and concurred in the indictment (seePeople v Perry,199 AD2d 889[1993]).Moreover, the prosecutor's conduct did not impair the integrity of the grand jury (seeCPL 210.35 [5];People v Adessa,89 NY2d 677, 684-686[1997];People v Huston,88 NY2d 400, 409[1996];People v Montes,5 AD3d 609[2004]).The indictment, as supplemented by the bill of particulars, also provided the defendant with sufficiently specific information as to the manner, time, and place of the crimes charged (seeCPL 200.50 [7][a];People v Jackson,46 NY2d 721, 723[1978];People v Iannone,45 NY2d 589[1978];People v Dudley,289 AD2d 503[2001];People v Pumarejo,222 AD2d 616[1995]).

Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.