You are here: / / THE INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING AGGRAVATED FAMILY OFFENSE DID NOT SPECIFY...
,

THE INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING AGGRAVATED FAMILY OFFENSE DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH OF THE LISTED OFFENSES WAS THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE, RENDERING THE COUNT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, determined the count of the indictment charging aggravated family offense (Penal Law 240.75) was jurisdictionally defective because it did not specify which of the offenses listed in the statute was the basis of the charge:

A defendant commits the crime of aggravated family offense pursuant to Penal Law § 240.75 when the defendant “commits a misdemeanor defined in subdivision two of this section as a specified offense and [the defendant] has been convicted of one or more specified offenses within the immediately preceding five years” (Penal Law § 240.75 [1]). Subdivision two of the statute contains 54 “specified offense[s],” 36 felonies and 18 misdemeanors … . To qualify as a specified offense, the defendant and the person against whom the offense was committed must be members of the same family or household as defined in CPL 530.11 (1) (see id. § 240.75 [2]) … . Thus, to commit the crime of aggravated family offense, a defendant must have been convicted of one or more of the specified offenses in subdivision two of the statute within the previous five years, the defendant must have currently committed one of the misdemeanor offenses listed in subdivision two, and both offenses must be committed against a member of the same family or household as the defendant.

Defendant contends that the failure to specify the current misdemeanor offense in the count of the indictment charging him with aggravated family offense rendered that count jurisdictionally defective … . We agree. People v Saenger, 2023 NY Slip Op 02735, CtApp 5-18-23

Practice Point: The aggravated family offense count did not specify the current misdemeanor offense on which the count was based, rendering the count jurisdictionally defective.

 

You might also like
INSURERS MAY PROPERLY REFUSE NO-FAULT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL SERVICE CORPORATION WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY NONPHYSICIANS, THERE IS NO NEED TO DEMONSTRATE FRAUDULENT INTENT OR CONDUCT TANTAMOUNT TO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE JURY TO HEAR NONPARTY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH THE NONPARTIES REPEATEDLY ASSERTED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS HARMLESS (CT APP).
IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REMOVE THE DISRUPTIVE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURTROOM WITHOUT WARNING JUST PRIOR THE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE VERDICT AND THE POLLING OF THE JURY; APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE “REMOVAL” ISSUE ON DIRECT APPEAL (CT APP).
NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT.
GRANDPARENTS, WITH WHOM THE CHILD HAD RESIDED FOR TEN YEARS, HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE 24-MONTH SEPARATION OF PARENT AND CHILD REQUIRED BY THE “GRANDPARENT STANDING” STATUTE BE CHARACTERIZED BY A COMPLETE LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.
DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED (1) THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE FINDING THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, AND (2) WHETHER A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS UNEQUIVOCAL IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP). ​
Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF THE INTENT TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANT’S LACK OF CAPACITY TO COMMIT ARSON WAS “1400 DAYS LATE,” THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE LATE NOTICE (CT APP). ​

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

THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OBSERVED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THIS STREET... THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND...