You are here: / / THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...

THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, with a two-judge concurrence, determined that the tolling provision, which tolls the five-year statute of limitations for certain sexual offenses involving a child until the child turns 18, applied here and the indictment, brought when the victim was 21, was timely. The opinion delves into an extensive statutory-interpretation analysis which is too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Defendant claims his prosecution is time-barred because the applicable five-year limitations period set forth in CPL former 30.10 (3)(e) expired before the filing of the felony complaint, and the statute of limitations is not subject to tolling under CPL 30.10 (3)(f). Defendant’s argument is unpersuasive, misconstrues the statutory provisions, and ignores the relevant legislative history. The crime for which defendant stands convicted is expressly encompassed by CPL 30.10 (3)(f), and involves the type of conduct the legislature sought to address by expansive, albeit delayed, prosecution of multiple acts of sexual abuse against a minor. * * *

Unlike CPL 30.10 (3)(e), which is a self-contained statute of limitations, CPL 30.10 (3)(f) is a tolling provision and as such is dependent on reference to time limits found elsewhere in the statute. Defendant mistakenly equates the two subsections — as if they are both statutes of limitations — when he claims they are in conflict and the specific provision of CPL 30.10 (3)(e) overrides the general provision of CPL 30.10 (3)(f). The more apt comparison is to the two statutes of limitations CPL 30.10 (3)(e) and 30.10 (2)(b), which harmoniously coexist as a specific and general statute of limitations, respectively, and which in no way lead to the conclusion promoted by defendant, that CPL 30.10 (3)(e) is superfluous. Regardless, there is no conflict obvious from the interplay of subsections (3)(e) and (3)(f). One sets forth a five-year prosecution deadline and the other explains when the clock begins to run on that deadline. People v Pabon, 2016 NY Slip Op 07108, CtApp 11-1-16

 

CRIMINAL LAW (THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)TOLLING PROVISION (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRIMINAL LAW, (THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)/CHILDREN, SEX OFFENSES INVOLVING  (THE TOLLING PROVISION, WHICH TOLLS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENSES UNTIL THE VICTIM TURNS 18, WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO RENDER THE INDICTMENT TIMELY; THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOLLING PROVISION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS)

You might also like
QUESTIONS WHETHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS COULD DISREGARD AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, CONVICTION REVERSED.
PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT TO FORECLOSE ON LOANS TO THE BORROWERS WHO THEN STARTED BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS; PLAINTIFFS THEN SUED DEFENDANTS, WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE FORECLOSURE/BANKRUPTCY ACTIONS, FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE LOAN AGREEMENTS; THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT ACTIONS ARE NOT PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW (CT APP).
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD PROPERLY DENIED BENEFITS FOR PTSD SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO COVID IN THE WORKPLACE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPOSURE AS OPPOSED TO THAT OF THE REST OF THE WORK FORCE; THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED TO CHANGE THE ANALYSIS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY SUCH THAT WHETHER A CLAIMANT SUFFERED STRESS GREATER THAN WHAT USUALLY OCCURS IN THE NORMAL WORK ENVIRONMENT IS NO LONGER A CONSIDERATION (CT APP).
Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient Privilege—Even Though the Admission Can Be Disclosed in Child Protective Proceedings, the Privilege Applies in a Criminal Trial
THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROMPTED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT PROMISED PROBATION FOR A D FELONY; ONCE IT WAS CLEAR DEFENDANT MUST BE SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION, THE JUDGE GAVE THE DEFENDANT THE OPTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, WHICH HE DECLINED TO DO; SENTENCE AFFIRMED (CT APP).
(1) SENTENCING COURT’S RELIANCE ON A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT IN A PRE-SENTENCE REPORT, AND FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT OF THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT, VIOLATED DUE PROCESS, (2) SENTENCING COURTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT THE REASONS FOR DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS ON THE RECORD.
SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.
Defendant’s Inability to Participate in the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Program Based Upon His Disciplinary Record Should Not Have Been Deemed a “Refusal” to Participate in the Program

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE... INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S...