DISTRICT
COURTOF NASSAU
COUNry
FIRSTDISTRICT
CRIMINAL
PARTDVM
THEPEOPLEOF THE STATEOF NEWYORK,
Plaintiff(s)
DOCKETNO. 2012NA000,,221
Present:
against
Hon.TRICIAM. FERRELL
DONALD
J. KIEL,
Defendant(s)
Thefollowingnamedpapersnumbered1 to 4
submittedon this motion on April 9,2012
Ordpr tn .Qhnw C?rrsp.Fnd Affidavits Anney.d
AncwPring ^ffidavits
Refrly Affirlavits
?
4
Thedefendantis chargedwithoneviolation
of PenalLawSection
215.50(3),
CriminalContemptin theSecondDegreeandnow movesfor an order
to dismissthe accusatoryinstrumentas faciallyinsufficient
and defectiveor in the
alternative
dismissthe accusatory
instrument
in the interestof justice,with
prejudice.
The undisputed
contentious
historyof thesepartiesrelatedto the court
casebeganwitha FamilyCourtpetitionfiledby the complainant-wife.
This
petitionwas ultimately
protection
dismissedhoweverthetemporary
orderof
issuedrefative
to this petitionremainsin effectuntilJune 18,2012.
The presentcasebeforethiscourtrelatesto an allegedviolationof th,e
aforementioned
FamilyCourtTemporaryOrderof Protectionin thatthe deferndant
failedto adhereto the followingprovision:
[he]shallnot discussany litigation
betweenthe parties,or in the presenceof the childrenprotectedunderparalEraph
remarksaboutthe petitioner
in thre
I04]of thisorder,or makeanydisparaging
presence
of the children.The supporting
of the complainant
deposition
statrss
thatdefendant
accusedthe complainant
of havingan affairin the presence
of the
theirdaughter.Thissamesupporting
statesthatthe defendant
is;not
deposition
"allowed
to talkaboutour relationship,
divorcein frontof our children".
Clearly,
the complainant's
own understanding
of thisorderprovidesfor a different
THEPEOPLE
OFTHESTATEOFNEWYORKV.DONALD
J. KIEL
DOCKET
NO.2012NA000221
interpretation
of the plainlanguage
of theorderin thatanydiscussion
abouttheir
relationship
wouldbe a basisfor an allegedviolation
according
to the
complainant.
Thecomplaint
furtherassertsan additional
violationin thatthe defenclant
by accusing
the complainant
of havingan affairmadedisparaging
remarksabout
the complainant
in the presenceof oneof thechildren.Thistheorybegsthr:
question:
following
Whatconstitutes
disparaging
remarks?Withouta legal
definition
of thisterm,the Courlmustreferto the everydayusageof the word
"disparaging".
According
to Webster's
ConciseEnglishDiction
ary,1ggZ,the
word"disparaging"
is an adjectivemeaningcritical;
sayingthatsomething
is bad.
The inherentproblemwith inclusion
"disparaging
of theterm
remark"in the
court'smandated
orderis thatcharacterizing
"bad"
a commentas
or "critical"
is
largelybaseduponsubjective
interpretation.
Thiscreatesgreyareawhichnot
onlymakesit difficultto providethe defendant
withadequatenoticeof the
prohibited
conduct,but uponthe filingof a criminalcontemptcharge,the people's
abilityto meetits burdenof proof(proofbeyonda reasonable
doubt)appearsto
be an impossibility.
Whileit appearsto the Courtthatthe purposeof suchordersarecreatedto
prevent
domestic
violence,
specifically
goalindeed,in
verbalabuse,a laudable
orderforthisgoalto trulybe accomplished,
the mandatessetforthin suchFiamily
Courtcivilordersrequirefurtherexamination
in orderfor the allegedviolationrs
to
survivecriminalcourtscrutiny.A feasiblealternative
worthyof consideration
in
somecaseswouldbe to maintaincivilcontempt
charges.Thatbeingsaid,tfris
Courtwillstopshortof furthercommentary
relative
to thisorderbecauseit lacks
jurisdiction
to disturbit.
Anotherconcernrelativeto thiscourt'sjurisdiction
mustbe addressed
here:
a faciallysufficient
accusatory
instrument.
"A faciallysufficient
jurisdictional
information
prerequisite
is a non-waivable,
prosecution."
to a criminal
Peoplev. Gibble,2Misc.3d510,773N.Y.S.2d
4El9
(2003)citingPeoplev, Alejandro,
T0 N.Y.2d133,517N.Y.S.2d927,511
N.E:.2d
71 (1987).Pursuant
to Criminal
Procedure
LawSection100.15(1),
an information
partanda factualpart. "To be sufficient
mustcontainan accusatory
on itsface,
an information
mustnot onlysubstantially
conformto the requirements
setforthin
Criminal
Procedure
LawSection100.15(1),
butmustalsocontainnon-hearsay
allegations
of factthat,togetherwiththoseof anysupporting
depositions
-2-
THEPEOPLE
OFTHESTATEOFNEWYORKV.DONALD
J. KIEL
DOCKET
NO.2012NA000221
accompanying
it, providereasonable
causeto believethatthe defendant
committed
the offensecharged,"Peoplev, Gibble,2Misc.3d510,773N.Y.S.2d
499,501(2003).
CriminalProcedure
LawSection100.40(1Xb).
Pursuantto CriminalProcedure
LawSection70.10(2),
Reasonable
causeto believea personhascommittedan offense
exitswhenevidenceor information
whichappearsreliablediscloses
factsor circumstances
whicharecollectively
of suchweightand
persuasiveness
as to convince
a personof ordinaryintelligence,
judgmentand experience
likelythatsuchoflense
thatit is reasonably
was committedandthatsuchpersoncommittedit. Exceptas
providedin thischapter,
othenruise
suchapparently
reliableevidence
mayincludeor consistof hearsay.
Thenon-hearsay
allegations
of fact,if true,mustestablisha primafacie
casein thattheysupporteveryelementof theoffensechargedandthe
defendant's
of it. Criminal
commission
LawSection100.40(1).
The
Procedure
standard
for upholding
an accusatory
instrument
is a lesseronethanthe People's
guiltbeyonda reasonable
burdenof proofat trial,whichis provingthe defendant's
doubt.Peoplev. Henderson,
92 N.Y.2d677,685N.Y.S.2d
409 (1999).TheCourt
mustviewthefactsin a lightmostfavorable
to the Peoplewhenassessing
tfre
facialsufficiency
of an accusatoryinstrument,
Peoplev. Gibble,2 Misc.3d510,
(2003),
773N.Y.S.2d499,512
andit should
or
notbegivenan overlyrestrictive
technical
reading.Peoplev. Anderson,25
901 N.Y.S.2d
Misc.3d1270(A),
9tC8,
2009W.L.3130180(N.Y.Dist.Ct.2009)
citingPeoplev. Casey,95N.Y.2d354,
717N.Y.S.2d
BB(2000).Here,evenif the courtoverlooks
its concernsrelatedto
theprohibited
conductin the order,the issueregarding
knowledge
of the order
andproofof its serviceuponthe defendant
cannotbe ignored.
UponreviewingPenalLawSection215.50(3),
a personis guiltyof Crirninal
or
disobedienc;e
Contempt
in the SecondDegreewhenhe engagesin intentional
process
resistance
to the laMul
or othermandateof a court. The accusatoryt
instrument
eachelement
of
mustcontainadequate
factualallegations
to establish
the aforementioned
chargeandthe defendant's
of each.The
commission
allegation
thatthe defendanthad knowledge
of thetermsof the orderis an
essential
elementof the crimethatmustbe setforthby the peoplein the
accusatory
instrument.Peoplev. lnserra,4N.Y.3d30, 823 N.E.2d437(2004)
citingMatterof McCormickv. Axelrod,59 N.Y.2d574,583(1983).
-3-
T H E P E O P L EO F T H E S T A T EO F N E W Y O R KV . D O N A L DJ K I E L
DOCKETNO. 2012NA000221
for the prosec:utor
"TheCourtof Appealshasheldthatit is a betterpractice
in
instrument
to the accusatory
copyof the orderof protection
to annexa cerlified
c r i m f n a cl a s e s ,b u t h a s s t a t e d t h a t a m i s d e m e a n o rc o m p l a i n tm a y b e d e e m e c la
copyof theorderof protection,
withouta certified
information
misdemeanor
18 Misc.3d1135A,859
dependingon the facts of the case." Peoplev. Filippirto,
N . yS . Z d8 9 7( 2 0 0 8c) i f i n gP e o p l ev . C a s e y , 9 5N Y 2 s3 5 4 , 7 4 0N . E d2 3 3 , 7 1 7
annexinga certifiedcopy of the orderto the
N.y.S.2dBB(2000). Nevertheless,
is the preferredpracticebecausethis one, simple
instrument
accusatory
lt setsforththe contentsof the orcler,
documentprovidesinvaluableinformation.
conductand it also indicateswhether
it outlinesthe prohibited
moreimportantly
the subjectof the orderwas presentwhenthe orderwas issued.
in that the deponentof
The caseat bar failsto meetthe abovestandards
of theFamily
t h e a c c u s a t o riyn s t r u m e nat l l e g e st h a tt h e d e f e n d a nht a d k n o w l e d g e
to be
basisfor this allegation
yet ihereis no sufficient
CourtOrderof protection,
documents
factssetforthin the prosecuting
made;thereare no non-hearsay
whichshowthatthe defendantwas everservedand had knowledgeof the orderin
question.CriminalProcedureLaw Section100.40.This defectappearsto be
Section17035(1Xa)howeverno suc;h
curablepursuantto CriminalProcedure
was madeto cure.
application
' s o t i o nt o d i s m i s st h e s o l es o u r t
B a s e du p o nt h e f o r e g o i n gt ,h e d e f e n d a n t m
ippti.rtions of the defendantare deniedas mootsince
is granted.The remaining
t h e c h a r g ei s h e r e b Yd i s m i s s e d .
Hereinliesthe decisionand orderof the Court.
So Ordered:
'l
l!
r,','.
)'t,'
A,i(.h!4 / l'(
/
'lf
t,i^)' il u
C O U R TJ U D G E
DISTRICT
Dated:
M a y2 2 , 2 0 1 2
CC:
AttorneY
H o n o r a b l eK a t h l e e nR i c e ,District
E
s
q
.
M i c h a eS
l epe,
TMF:blm
-4-