People v. Howlett (Ivest)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howlett (Ivest)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2016

Docket2016 NYSlipOp 50629(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Howlett (Ivest) (People v. Howlett (Ivest)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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 v. Howlett (Ivest), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ivest Howlett, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, convicting her, after a jury trial, of willful violation of health laws, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with wilful violation of health laws (see Public Health Law [PHL] § 12-b[2]) in connection with her failure to report an act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect (see PHL § 2803-d). The factual portion of the complaint alleged that on February 12, 2012, at 11:10 p.m., defendant, a nurse's aide at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Care Center, witnessed an incident where a nurse at the facility "pushed [a] resident up against the wall and punched the resident." The complaint further alleged that defendant "left [t]he [f]acility at the end of her shift without reporting the incident she had witnessed."

We agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient, since it failed to set forth, prima facie, her commission of the charged offense, an essential element of which is proof that defendant failed to report the act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect "immediately by telephone and in writing within forty-eight hours to the [Department of Health]" (PHL 2803-d[3]). The underlying instrument not only failed to indicate the time and manner of reporting required under PHL § 2803-d, but was bereft of any evidentiary facts that defendant failed to report the incident to the Department of Health, let alone whether such report was timely. In such sparse and unelucidating form, the accusatory instrument "failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy" (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 20, 2016

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ivest Howlett, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, convicting her, after a jury trial, of willful violation of health laws, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with wilful violation of health laws (see Public Health Law [PHL] § 12-b[2]) in connection with her failure to report an act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect (see PHL § 2803-d). The factual portion of the complaint alleged that on February 12, 2012, at 11:10 p.m., defendant, a nurse's aide at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Care Center, witnessed an incident where a nurse at the facility "pushed [a] resident up against the wall and punched the resident." The complaint further alleged that defendant "left [t]he [f]acility at the end of her shift without reporting the incident she had witnessed."

We agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient, since it failed to set forth, prima facie, her commission of the charged offense, an essential element of which is proof that defendant failed to report the act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect "immediately by telephone and in writing within forty-eight hours to the [Department of Health]" (PHL 2803-d[3]). The underlying instrument not only failed to indicate the time and manner of reporting required under PHL § 2803-d, but was bereft of any evidentiary facts that defendant failed to report the incident to the Department of Health, let alone whether such report was timely. In such sparse and unelucidating form, the accusatory instrument "failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy" (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: April 20, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Howlett (Ivest), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howlett-ivest-nyappterm-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack