Home/New York Court of Appeals/Darvin M. v. Jacobs

Darvin M. v. Jacobs

509 N.E.2d 336, 69 N.Y.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16737
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 509 N.E.2d 336 (Darvin M. v. Jacobs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Darvin M. v. Jacobs, 509 N.E.2d 336, 69 N.Y.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16737 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner brought a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondents from allowing New York City Department of Probation attorneys to participate as counsel in a probation revocation proceeding brought against him. The Appellate Division properly denied the requested relief. It cannot be said that respondent New York City Department of Probation is clearly acting "in excess of its authorized powers” [959]*959(Matter of Jacobs v Altman, 69 NY2d 733, 734; see, Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62) in functioning as counsel in presenting probation violations at revocation hearings (see, Executive Law §§ 243, 255 [3]; CPL 410.70; 9 NYCRR 352.1 [e]; 352.3 [b] [2]; 352.4 [a] [1]; 355.3 [b] [1]). While a District Attorney may present evidence of alleged violations at revocation hearings, the Department of Probation is not usurping authority vested exclusively in the District Attorney under County Law § 927 by participating as counsel.

A violation of probation giving rise to revocation proceedings is not a "crime” or "offense” (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [1], [6]) which, pursuant to the County Law, must be prosecuted by a District Attorney (see, County Law §§ 700, 927). Nor is a revocation proceeding a "criminal action” (CPL 1.20 [16]) under the Criminal Procedure Law at which a "prosecutor” represents the People (CPL 1.20 [31]). A "criminal action” terminates upon sentencing (see, CPL 1.20 [16]; cf, Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46). A probation revocation, in contrast, is a "criminal proceeding” brought after the completed "criminal action” (see, CPL 1.20 [18]). Its purpose is to determine if defendant’s subsequent acts violate the conditions of the original sentence not whether the acts constitute a crime.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Jordan
148 A.D.3d 1461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Fann
47 Misc. 3d 416 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
People v. Miranda-Hernandez
106 A.D.3d 838 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
State v. Asuncion
205 P.3d 577 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2009)
People v. Ruff
50 A.D.3d 1167 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Brown
32 A.D.3d 1222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Bercume
6 Misc. 3d 420 (New York Supreme Court, 2004)
People v. Stevens
309 A.D.2d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Stefanello
195 Misc. 2d 262 (New York County Courts, 2003)
People v. Palacios
185 Misc. 2d 773 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)
People v. Hilton
266 A.D.2d 233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Wong
180 Misc. 2d 749 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
People v. Hilton
179 Misc. 2d 538 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
People v. Doyle
177 Misc. 2d 74 (New York Supreme Court, 1998)
People v. Stevens
692 N.E.2d 985 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
In re Meleick H.
170 Misc. 2d 230 (NYC Family Court, 1996)
People v. Brasier
169 Misc. 2d 337 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)
People v. Recor
663 N.E.2d 910 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Haggerty v. Himelein
221 A.D.2d 138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
People v. Recor
209 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 N.E.2d 336, 69 N.Y.2d 957, 516 N.Y.S.2d 641, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darvin-m-v-jacobs-ny-1987.