| People v Correa, Edgar |
| Motion No: M-1078 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 64994(U) |
| Decided on March 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
March 5, 2010
People v Correa, Edgar
Stay denied; interim stay previously issued vacated.
All concur except Acosta, J. who would grant a stay and dissents as follows:
I respectfully dissent from the majority's denial of a stay.
The majority insists that a stay is improper here because there is nothing to stay in this criminal appeal, ignoring the clear import of its decision which impacts not only a significant number of adjudications of the Bronx Criminal Division (BCD), but threatens to undermine the highly successful problem-solving courts, such as the Drug Courts and Integrated Domestic Violence Courts, all of which permit the adjudication of all criminal matters, including non-indicted misdemeanors, in a single superior court.
While I agree with the majority that no authority for a stay can be found in the Criminal Procedure Law inasmuch as only defendant's liberty interests are implicated (see CPL 460.60; People v Moquin, 77 NY2d 449, 454-455 [1991]), the majority decision is akin to a writ of prohibition against the Unified Court System. Had the majority's sweeping sua sponte pronouncement taken place in the usual context of either an Article 78 proceeding or a plenary action, the Unified Court System would be a party and entitled to the automatic stay provision contained in CPLR 5519(a)(1). The separation of powers controversy was raised and then decided by the majority in a criminal proceeding in which the majority now asserts it is helpless to grant a stay.
The majority has challenged the powers of the Chief Judge and the Chief Administrative Judge in the context of a narrow criminal proceeding. Were the controversy properly before this Court on appeal, the majority should not trump clear legislative intent to preserve the status quo pending resolution of an appeal or an order effectively restraining judicial or quasi judicial officers from acting without jurisdiction or in excess of their jurisdiction (cf. Ulster Home Care v Vacco, 255 AD2d 73 [1999]). It is in this context that the majority has the inherent authority to craft a remedy whereby defendant's rights are protected, while at the same time, the impact of the decision on the various problem-solving courts can be stayed pending resolution by the Court of Appeal. It should be noted that prospective defendants in the BCD are protected since Bronx Administrative Judge Efrain Alvarado has already issued an order bringing the BCD in compliance with the Correa decision. But, the ramifications of this decision on prior convictions in BCD, as well as the thousands of orders of protection, could be devastating to our court system. Also, this decision may have a devastating impact on the other problem solving courts. For these reasons, I dissent.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse, JJ.
Motion No. M-1078