You are here: / / JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING...

JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeny, determined the defendant was eligible for judicial diversion where defendant was charged with both statutorily qualifying offenses and other offenses which were nowhere defined as qualifying or disqualifying offenses:

The Legislature amended the DLRA [Drug Law Reform Act] in 2009, enacting CPL 216.00 and 216.05 to create a mechanism for judicial diversion. Under this program, eligible felony offenders whose drug or alcohol abuse contributed to their criminal conduct, may, at the discretion of the court, be afforded the opportunity to avoid a felony conviction and a prison sentence by successfully participating in a judicially supervised substance abuse program. Unlike prior drug offense programs, judicial diversion does not require the prosecutor’s consent … . * * *

… [The statute] sets forth a list of disqualifying offenses/conditions that prevent a defendant from qualifying for judicial diversion, although as noted, even some of those offenses may not prevent disqualification with the People’s consent. In applying the principle “espressio unius est exclusio alterius,” “an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded” … . The inescapable conclusion is that the Legislature’s decision not to list certain offenses as disqualifying means their mere inclusion in an indictment will not prevent an otherwise eligible defendant from making an application for judicial diversion. People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op 02596, 1st Dept 4-5-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING)/JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM (JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL IN A POTHOLE IN THE PATH FROM THE BUS TO THE CURB, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES REQUIRED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CONSIDER PETITIONER-TENANT’S ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT, THE HEARING OFFICER HAD RULED THE DOG WAS VICIOUS AND MUST BE REMOVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THE APPEALS AND WILL NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE THE ORDER MAY AFFECT RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BROUGHT BEFORE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS A-FRAME LADDER-FALL CASE; ALTHOUGH NO DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INJURY FROM A WOODEN CONCRETE FORM FALLING OVER WERE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLOWING HIS ATTACKER INTO HIS APARTMENT WAS AN INTERVENING ACT AND A SUPERSEDING PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH RELIEVED THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS OF ANY LIABILITY FOR LAPSES IN SECURITY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LANDLORD OWED NO STATUTORY DUTY TO ABATE LEAD IN AN APARTMENT WHERE THE CHILD... DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY BY PARTICIPATING...