[*1]
People v Howlett (Ivest)
2016 NY Slip Op 50629(U) [51 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on April 20, 2016
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on April 20, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570044/15

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Ivest Howlett, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, convicting her, after a jury trial, of willful violation of health laws, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with wilful violation of health laws (see Public Health Law [PHL] § 12-b[2]) in connection with her failure to report an act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect (see PHL § 2803-d). The factual portion of the complaint alleged that on February 12, 2012, at 11:10 p.m., defendant, a nurse's aide at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Care Center, witnessed an incident where a nurse at the facility "pushed [a] resident up against the wall and punched the resident." The complaint further alleged that defendant "left [t]he [f]acility at the end of her shift without reporting the incident she had witnessed."

We agree with defendant that the accusatory instrument was facially insufficient, since it failed to set forth, prima facie, her commission of the charged offense, an essential element of which is proof that defendant failed to report the act of physical abuse, mistreatment or neglect "immediately by telephone and in writing within forty-eight hours to the [Department of Health]" (PHL 2803-d[3]). The underlying instrument not only failed to indicate the time and manner of reporting required under PHL § 2803-d, but was bereft of any evidentiary facts that defendant failed to report the incident to the Department of Health, let alone whether such report was timely. In such sparse and unelucidating form, the accusatory instrument "failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy" (People v Dreyden, 15 NY3d 100, 103 [2010]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.


I concur I concur I concur


Decision Date: April 20, 2016