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
ARGUMENT THAT PROBATION CONDITIONS ARE ILLEGAL SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO; DEFENDANT AND VICTIM WERE CLOSE IN AGE AND THE LACK OF CONSENT WAS SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE.
Police Did Not Demonstrate They Had a “Founded Suspicion Criminality Was Afoot” Before Asking For and Receiving Defendant’s Permission to Search His Car
Trial Judge Should Have Allowed Slightly Late Peremptory Challenge—Conviction Reversed
Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or Reject a Claim Are Discoverable—Reports by Attorneys Made After the Claim Is Rejected Are Not Discoverable
DWI COUNTS WERE LESSER INCLUSORY COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ERROR DID NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH DEPT).
FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JURORS COULD NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THEY COULD PUT ASIDE THEIR RESERVATIONS AND BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A NEW TRIAL AND BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RULED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TWO EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, ONE RAISED BY THE PEOPLE, AND ONE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH 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 © 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,...