Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990

People v. Britton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 2, 1990

158 A.D.2d 932; 551 N.Y.S.2d 865; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1442

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
People v. Finch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
ROBINSON, STEVEN, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
People v. Diaz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Reimonenq (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Springer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Kitchens (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Randolph (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Defendant contends that his probation was improperly re*933voked because the court did not give him a written copy of the conditions of probation at the time he was sentenced and because he was acquitted of the charges underlying the revocation. It was error for the court to fail to give defendant a written copy of the conditions of his probation so as to inform him explicitly of the conduct to be avoided (see, People v Howland, 108 AD2d 1019). Defendant’s probation was properly revoked, nevertheless, based on his "[c]ommission of an additional offense” (CPL 410.10 [2]) without the need for defendant to have been notified of that condition. The fact that defendant was later acquitted of the underlying charges is irrelevant. The rules of evidence and the burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing are different from those in a criminal trial (see, CPL 410.70 [3]; see also, People v Howland, supra; People v Morse, 96 AD2d 654).

Because County Court erred in finding that defendant violated the oral conditions of his probation, we vacate the sentence and remand defendant to County Court, Onondaga County, for resentencing on the violation of CPL 410.10 (2) only. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — violation of probation; CPL art 440.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.