People v. Barnett
This text of People v. Barnett (People v. Barnett) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Barnett
2026 NY Slip Op 02412
April 22, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Michael Barnett, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 70181/21)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 22, 2026
2023-06639
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
Linda Christopher
Lillian Wan
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Mimi Lei of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Nicole Kaye of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Alexander Jeong, J., at plea; Marina C. Mundy, J., at sentence), rendered June 21, 2023, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
"Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals, like the defendant, who were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime" (People v Dillon H., 229 AD3d 722, 723 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, and as consented to by the People, we modify the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed upon the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Jean-Jacques, 236 AD3d 1055; People v Gonzales, 235 AD3d 897; People v Dillon H., 229 AD3d at 723).
GENOVESI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court