People v Solomon
2023 NY Slip Op 02030 [39 NY3d 1114]
April 20, 2023
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2023


[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v
Yermia Solomon, Also Known as Jeremy Solomon, Respondent.

Argued March 15, 2023; decided April 20, 2023

People v Solomon, 203 AD3d 1468, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Brian P. Conaty, Acting District Attorney, Monticello (Danielle K. Blackaby of counsel), for appellant.

The Law Offices of Nathaniel Z. Marmur, PLLC, NewYork City (Nathaniel Z. Marmur of counsel), for respondent.

{**39 NY3d at 1115} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed.

A grand jury indicted defendant on several felony sex offenses based on allegations that he engaged in sexual contact with an underage victim. Defendant agreed to be prosecuted under a superior court information (SCI) and, in full satisfaction of the amended indictment, which was consolidated with the SCI for plea purposes, defendant pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child under Penal Law § 260.10 and was sentenced to three years' probation. The Appellate Division subsequently concluded the SCI was jurisdictionally defective, reversed defendant's conviction, and dismissed the SCI (203 AD3d 1468 [3d Dept 2022]). The prosecution appeals.[FN*]

A defendant may waive their constitutional right to grand jury presentment and indictment and proceed by SCI in accordance with the strict technical requirements of CPL 195.10 (2). Here, the SCI was filed after the grand jury indicted defendant and thus the SCI failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites. Accordingly, the SCI is a [*2]nullity and was properly{**39 NY3d at 1116} dismissed (see CPL 195.10 [2]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585 [1990]; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589 [1978]; People v Randall, 9 NY2d 413, 422-423 [1961]).

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro and Troutman concur; Judge Halligan took no part.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.



Footnotes


Footnote *: The prosecution limits its challenge to the dismissal of the SCI. Therefore, we have no occasion to opine on the Appellate Division's determination that it was error to permit the prosecutor's amendment of the indictment to correct the victim's date of birth.