People v. Gerardray
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
People v Gerardray
2026 NY Slip Op 04320
July 8, 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
Vicete Gerardray, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 8, 2026
2023-06362, (Ind. No. 72081/22)
Betsy Barros, J.P.
William G. Ford
James P. McCormack
Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Steven C. Kuza of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel; Liam M. Brozen on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Toni M. Cimino, J.), rendered June 22, 2023, convicting him of criminal trespass in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 24, requiring the defendant to participate in an alcohol, substance abuse, intervention, domestic violence or alternative to violence program as directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 25, requiring the defendant to refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and from having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation, and Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition Nos. 14 and 25 from the conditions of probation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to criminal trespass in the second degree in full satisfaction of an indictment charging him, inter alia, with burglary in the third degree. After successfully completing a drug treatment program, the defendant was sentenced to a term of probation of three years. On appeal, the defendant contends that his sentence was excessive, and challenges five conditions imposed upon his probation, to wit, Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, Condition No. 15, requiring the defendant to undergo random drug and alcohol testing if directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 24, requiring the defendant to participate in an alcohol, substance abuse, intervention, domestic violence or alternative to violence program as directed by the Department of Probation, Condition No. 25, requiring the defendant to refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and from having any association with a gang or members of a gang if directed by the Department of Probation, and Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearm or other weapon, or contraband found during the search
"Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation 'shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that [a] defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist [the defendant] to do so'" (People v Dranchuk, 203 AD3d 741, 742-743, quoting Penal Law § 65.10[1]; see People v Hakes, 32 NY3d 624, 628). "The conditions and requirements are to be tailored to suit the probationer" (People v Hale, 93 NY2d 454, 461), and the sentencing court is empowered to require that the probationer "[s]atisfy any other conditions reasonably related to his [or her] rehabilitation" (Penal Law § 65.10[2][l]; see People v Hale, 93 NY2d at 461).
Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities, was improperly imposed because it was not individually tailored to the defendant, who was unmarried with no children (see People v Aldea, 244 AD3d 745). Similarly, since there was no evidence that the defendant had a gang affiliation or contact with gangs, Condition No. 25 was improperly imposed (see People v Massie, 245 AD3d 567, 568; People v Vasquetelles, 241 AD3d 1208, 1209).
However, owing to the defendant's prior substance abuse, Condition Nos. 15, 24, and 28 were properly imposed (see People v Elijah C., 241 AD3d 1361, 1364).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., FORD, MCCORMACK and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Gerardray (People v. Gerardray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.