You are here: / / SURCHARGE, DNA DATABANK FEE, CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEE SHOULD NOT HAVE...
,

SURCHARGE, DNA DATABANK FEE, CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE FEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST A JUVENILE OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice concurrence, determined that defendant juvenile offender waived his right to appeal but found that the surcharge, DNA databank fee and crime victim assistance fee should not have been imposed on a juvenile offender. The concurrence argued that the waiver of appeal precluded the challenge to the imposed fees, but the People waived defendant’s appeal-waiver on that narrow issue:

As defendant contends and the People correctly concede, we conclude that the surcharge, DNA databank fee, and crime victim assistance fee imposed by County Court must be vacated because defendant is a juvenile offender … . People v Works, 2019 NY Slip Op 02247, Fourth Dept 3-22-19

 

You might also like
Supreme Court Should Have Considered the Alleged Incapacitated Person’s (AIP’s) Available Resources Before Finding the AIP Incapacitated and In Need of a Guardian
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).
WRONGFUL CONVICTION ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, CONVICTION WAS NOT VACATED ON A GROUND ENUMERATED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
Ordinance Prohibiting “Unnecessary Noise” Is Not Unconstitutionally Vague
STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRAND JURY PRESENTATION STRICTLY CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED, CONVICTION REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY DEFENDANT OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PRESENTATION.
WALMART DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF, AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER INJURED BY ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER AFTER RESPONDING TO A THEFT AT A WALMART STORE (FOURTH DEPT).
Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied

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

DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY PETITIONER WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT... PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE,...