The defendant, Sheldon L. Allen, is charged with Forcible Touching, a class "A" misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law §130.52 and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, a class "A" misdemeanor, in violation of Penal Law §260.10(1). Defendant moves, by ex parte motion dated June 17, 2010, through his attorney Jeffrey T. Richards, Esq. seeking funding pursuant to County Law §722-c for the services of a criminal investigator. The matter now comes before the Court for a decision.

Defendant requests funding in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00) to hire a private investigator. County Law §722-c authorizes an attorney to seek compensation from the court for investigative services. Counsel must show that their client is financially unable to pay and that such services are necessary to provide an adequate defense. Under [*2]the statute, the court may provide a maximum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each investigative services provider. Only in extraordinary circumstances can additional compensation be granted.

The decision to allocate funds is in the discretion of the trial court, upon a showing that there is a "distinct necessity for the expert" and that the defendant is unable to pay for such services. People v. Dove, 287 AD2d 806, 731 NYS2d 769 (3d Dept 2001). If the funding request exceeds the maximum statutory limit of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the defense must show that "extraordinary circumstances" exist which would allow for the disbursement of additional funds. Id. Requests for county funding must demonstrate both the "necessity" as well as the "relevance"of the evidence. People v. Drumgoole, 234 AD2d 888, 652 NYS2d 443 (4th Dept 1996). Applications that fail to provide details as to the necessity of such services may be denied. People v. Dearstyne, 305 AD2d 850, 761 NYS2d 118 (3d Dept 2003). Broad and hypothetical assertions that obtaining an investigator would be "helpful" do not satisfy this requirement. People v. Rockwell, 18 AD3d 969,794 NYS2d 726 (3d Dept 2005). Only if the defense motion contains specific factual details that warrant the employment of a private investigator, such as the ability to uncover particular evidence that may be "crucial to defendant's asserted defense," must the court grant the motion. People v. Jones, 210 AD2d 904, 620 NYS2d 656 (4th Dept 1994).

Defendant has failed to provide the court with specific facts to justify the allocation of scarce public resources for a private investigator to assist in the defense of pending misdemeanor charges. The affidavit submitted by defense counsel states that there will be an "extensive investigation" but fails to provide specific details, including which witnesses will be interviewed or what leads they intend to follow. The affidavit also fails to demonstrate that the defense has exhausted other investigative avenues. The motion is hereby denied. This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER.SO ORDERED.

August 24, 2010_____________________________

Albany, New YorkRachel L. Kretser

Albany City Court Judge