You are here: / / PROBATION CONDITIONS PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A COMPUTER AND A CELL PHONE...

PROBATION CONDITIONS PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF A COMPUTER AND A CELL PHONE WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE; DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED SEXUAL ABUSE FIRST DEGREE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined some of the conditions of probation prohibiting defendant from possessing a computer and cell phone were not warranted. Defendant pled guilty to attempted sexual abuse first degree:

In addition to prohibiting defendant from maintaining an account on a social networking site, condition 34 also prohibits defendant from purchasing, possessing, controlling, or having access to any computer or device with internet capabilities and from maintaining any “internet account,” including email, without permission from his probation officer. Condition 35 prohibits defendant from owning, renting, or possessing a cell phone with picture taking capabilities or cameras or video recorders for capturing images. In light of defendant’s lack of a prior criminal history and the lack of evidence in the record linking defendant’s use of technology to the underlying offense, we conclude that those parts of condition 34 and the entirety of condition 35 do not relate to the goals of probation and thus are not enforceable on that ground … . People v Blanco-Ortiz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04447, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF DRUGS IN AN APARTMENT LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Shooting Accomplished With Two Weapons Constituted a Single Continuing Offense/Indictment Not Duplicitous
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENTS WAS A BREACH OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge Did Not Constitute a “Mode of Proceedings” Error
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY EACH ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT MEDICAL CENTER TO SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
“REFUSING A BREATH TEST” IS NOT A COGNIZABLE OFFENSE; A CONVICTION IS THEREFORE A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH MUST BE CORRECTED ON APPEAL EVEN IF THE ISSUE IS NOT BRIEFED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof
PLAINTIFF, A PERMISSIVE DRIVER OF DEFENDANT’S TRUCK, WAS INJURED WHEN HE OPENED THE WATER RESERVOIR FOR THE ENGINE AND IT “EXPLODED,” APPARENTLY BECAUSE THE ENGINE OVERHEATED DUE TO THE POSITION OF THE SNOW PLOW AND THE CONSEQUENT BLOCKING OF AIR FLOW TO THE ENGINE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS FORESEEABLE, WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT OWED PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE (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

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT... PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S EMAIL WAS AN ENFORCEABLE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT;...