People v. Revell
| Citation | 93 Misc.2d 159,402 N.Y.S.2d 522 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Reginald REVELL, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1978 |
| Court | New York District Court |
Defendant's motion for an order dismissing the informations filed against him is denied.
Defendant has been charged with several violations of the Penal Law in that he engaged in a course of conduct whereby he did harass, threaten and endanger his wife's life.
The complainant wife pursuant to Section 812 of the Family Court Act as amended L.1977, c. 499, Sec. 1, and effective September 1, 1977, did exercise her right to proceed with a complaint in the District Court as opposed to the Family Court. As a result defendant husband now faces criminal liability.
Defendant now moves for a dismissal of the three informations pursuant to Section 170.35 of the Criminal Procedure Law, alleging the informations are defective in that this Court is without jurisdiction of the offenses charged.
In his moving papers defendant first contends that the complainant has not filed any documents pursuant to Section 812 of the Family Court Act indicating that complainant was advised of procedures available for the institution of family offenses and having been so advised elected the District Court as the forum.
Nowhere in Section 812 of the Family Court Act is there any requirements for the filing of such a document. What the Section does require is that any petitioner or complainant must be advised of certain procedures.
Nevertheless the People in opposition have submitted as Exhibit A, a document bearing the purported signature of the complainant wherein she was advised of the procedures and after being so advised elected this Court as the forum in which she wished to proceed. In the Court's opinion this sufficiently rebuts the argument of the defendant.
Turning to the more serious issue which defendant has raised, this Court is faced with determining whether the amendments to Section 812 of the Family Court Act divesting the Family Court of exclusive original jurisdiction of certain acts between spouses which have come to be known as "family offenses" and giving the criminal courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court over such offenses, contravene the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York.
Defendant contends that the Legislature in amending Section 812 did violate the Constitution of the State of New York, Article 6, Section 13(b) relating to the Family Court which provides:
"The family court shall have jurisdiction over the following classes of actions and proceedings which shall be originated in such family court in the manner provided by law: . . . and (7) as may be provided by law : the guardianship of the person(s) of minors and, in conformity with the provisions of section seven of this article, crimes and offenses by or against minors or between spouses or between parent and child or between members of the same family or household. . . .". (emphasis added)
This Section then sets forth the actions and proceedings over which the Family Court shall have jurisdiction. The question then is whether this grant of jurisdiction is mandatory or permissive?
In examining the language of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saratoga County Grand Jury Reports for March, 1979 Term, Matter of, R-
... ... indicates his desire and willingness to waive any and all immunity that he would otherwise receive with respect to the testimony he gives (People v. Rice, 93 Misc.2d 182, 402 N.Y.S.2d 522). While the questions propounded and the responses thereto lacked orderliness and specificity, analysis of ... ...