| People v Wang (Elizabeth) |
| 2003 NY Slip Op 51403(U) |
| Decided on October 16, 2003 |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
Digest-Index Classification: Courts—Stare Decisis—Appellate Term
Crimes—Sentence
|
[*2]Appeal by defendants from judgments of the City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County (R. McGaw, J.), rendered May 16, 2002, convicting them of multiple violations of section 6-17 of the Building and Utility Codes of the City of Poughkeepsie and sentencing defendants to "fines in the amount of $10,000 concurrently."
Judgments of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, cross motion by the People to amend the information is denied, fines, if paid, remitted and matters remanded to the court below for a new trial as against defendants Elizabeth Wang and Tse-Hau Wang.
The People in this, prosecution for multiple violations of section 6-17 of the Building and Utility Codes of the City of Poughkeepsie cross-moved to amend the accusatory instrument filed against Elizabeth Wang to add "WEH Development Co., LLC" as a named defendant. The cross motion was granted and the matters proceeded to be tried jointly. Following the trial, the court found defendants guilty and imposed fines of $10,000 "concurrently."
This court previously held that an amendment of an accusatory instrument to add and/or change the name of a defendant is not permissible (see People v Hempstead Video, Inc., NYLJ, Nov. 22, 1995 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]; see also CPL 100.45). Thus, the court erred in granting the People's cross motion. Additionally, we note that the court erred in imposing "concurrent" fines and failing to impose a separate sentence as to each conviction and each defendant. The court also failed to set forth the dates on which it found the alleged violations to have occurred or specify which of the individual [*3]defendants was responsible for the alleged violations ( 9 NYCRR 606.3).
In view of the foregoing, the judgments of conviction must be reversed. Furthermore, we observe that the court's denial of defendants' pretrial motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments was proper. Finally, in view of the foregoing, we need not pass on the applicability of People v Fremd (41 NY2d 372) to the case at bar.
Decision Date: October 16, 2003