People of State of New York v. Neuroth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People of State of New York v. Neuroth

172 A.D.2d 886, 568 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4208

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 4, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 886 (People of State of New York v. Neuroth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People of State of New York v. Neuroth, 172 A.D.2d 886, 568 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered April 30, 1990, which modified the terms of defendant’s probation.

After a hearing, County Court determined that defendant violated a specific condition of his probation and, therefore, the court modified defendant’s probation by sentencing him to 30 days in the County Jail. We initially find no merit to defendant’s contention that the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard deprives him of his liberty without due process of law. Not only does the statute provide for the use of this standard (CPL 470.10 [3]), but case law has held that a probation violation hearing is not a criminal proceeding (see, Gagnon v Scarpelli, 411 US 778, 782; Matter of Darvin M. v [887]*887Jacobs, 69 NY2d 957, 959) and, therefore, a violation of probation need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Howland, 108 AD2d 1019, 1020; People v Crandall, 51 AD2d 841, 842). Having found this, we agree with County Court that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that defendant violated a condition of his probation. To the extent the testimony was conflicting, this involved a credibility question for the court to resolve and we see no reason to disturb its finding (see, People v Krzykowski, 121 AD2d 831, 833). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and also find it lacking in merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered April 30, 1990, which modified the terms of defendant’s probation.

After a hearing, County Court determined that defendant violated a specific condition of his probation and, therefore, the court modified defendant’s probation by sentencing him to 30 days in the County Jail. We initially find no merit to defendant’s contention that the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard deprives him of his liberty without due process of law. Not only does the statute provide for the use of this standard (CPL 470.10 [3]), but case law has held that a probation violation hearing is not a criminal proceeding (see, Gagnon v Scarpelli, 411 US 778, 782; Matter of Darvin M. v [887]*887Jacobs, 69 NY2d 957, 959) and, therefore, a violation of probation need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Howland, 108 AD2d 1019, 1020; People v Crandall, 51 AD2d 841, 842). Having found this, we agree with County Court that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that defendant violated a condition of his probation. To the extent the testimony was conflicting, this involved a credibility question for the court to resolve and we see no reason to disturb its finding (see, People v Krzykowski, 121 AD2d 831, 833). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and also find it lacking in merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 886, 568 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-state-of-new-york-v-neuroth-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack