The New York State Budget for Fiscal 2021-2022

Click HERE to access Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's summary of the budget for the State's fiscal year 2021-2022 designed "to reimagine, rebuild and renew New York in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic."

On April 7, 2021 State Comptroller Thomas p. Dinapoli issued the following statement addressing the Legislature and Governor agreement on a new state budget.

"More than a year into the pandemic, the number of cases remain high in New York but the accelerated pace of vaccinations and job growth in many sectors indicate an improving economic outlook. We are not out of the woods, and we must remain cautious as there is still uncertainty about the epidemic and the trajectory and equity of the recovery. 

“The budget includes significant new resources from federal aid and from tax increases. Higher personal income tax rates on high-income taxpayers will likely increase the volatility of personal income tax collections, and will make combined state and local rates for New York City high-income earners the highest in the nation. Effects on the recovery of New York City and on the state and city budgets must be monitored closely.

“New revenues will support investments in education and health care programs, provide benefits to the middle class, and importantly offer relief to New Yorkers and small businesses who need it, including workers who have been excluded from federal stimulus aid. Helping struggling New Yorkers is essential for an equitable recovery.

“While much of the new resources may be temporary and necessary to meet current needs, it is important that spending not grow to unsustainable levels. The state must plan for the end of emergency federal aid and use new tax resources to fund essential services, to once again begin contributing to rainy day funds and to reduce projected out-year gaps. Long-term alignment of recurring revenues with recurring spending is essential to putting New York’s fiscal house in order.

“My office’s full analysis of the enacted state budget will be released in the following weeks.”

 

Determining the jurisdiction where an individual alleged to have stolen funds from a New York Emergency Medical Squad may be tried for the alleged theft

A resident of Warren County [Petitioner] had served with an Emergency Squad [EMS] that essentially operated in a nearby county. Petitioner was indicted by a Warren County grand jury for alleged grand larceny, petit larceny and falsifying business records for his alleged theft of money from EMS bank accounts at locations in another county. Ultimately a trial was commenced in Warren County with respect three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of falsifying business records in the first degree.

In response to Petitioner's supplemental omnibus motion/motion to reargue and reconsider, seeking, among other things, a court order dismissing the remaining counts of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, Warren County Court held that Warren County was the proper geographical jurisdiction for the retrial of the four remaining counts. Warren County Court subsequently dismissed the count of falsifying business records in the first degree for insufficient evidence.

Petitioner then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition*to enjoin the prosecution of the three grand larceny counts in Warren County Court. The Warren County District Attorney [DA], in rebuttal, contended, "prohibition does not properly lie as other remedies are available, and that 'particular effect jurisdiction'** was demonstrated by the negative impact of Petitioner's conduct on the availability of emergency medical care in Warren County."

The Appellate Division opined that for "particular effect jurisdiction" to attach under the circumstances underlying this action, the DA was required to establish not only that Petitioner's alleged conduct had a materially harmful impact to the well-being of the Warren County community as a whole, but also that Petitioner intended his conduct to have such an impact, citing People v Fea, 47 NY2d 70.

Noting the decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, the Appellate Division observed that "[a] defendant has the right at common law and under the State Constitution to be tried in the county where the crime was committed unless the Legislature has provided otherwise". Further, said the Appellate Division, "The burden is on the People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the county where the crime is [being] prosecuted is the proper venue because either the crime was committed there or one of the statutory exceptions is applicable".

Finding that the DA had offered no proof of such intent on the part of Petitioner and had failed to establish that Plaintiff's alleged theft of money in the amount of $3,900 from EMS*** caused such a "materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare" of Warren County to justify the extraordinary exercise of "particular effect jurisdiction", the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's motion seeking the writ of prohibition.

* A writ of prohibition is a written order by a higher court to a lower court typically forbidding the lower court from taking further action in a case then pending before it.

** See §20.10(4) of the Criminal Procedures Law.

*** Described by the Appellate Division as "a nongovernmental entity serving one town within Warren County".

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

Determining the jurisdiction where an individual alleged to have stolen funds from a New York Emergency Medical Squad may be tried for the alleged theft

A resident of Warren County [Petitioner] had served with an Emergency Squad [EMS] that essentially operated in a nearby county. Petitioner was indicted by a Warren County grand jury for alleged grand larceny, petit larceny and falsifying business records for his alleged theft of money from EMS bank accounts at locations in another county. Ultimately a trial was commenced in Warren County with respect three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of falsifying business records in the first degree.

In response to Petitioner's supplemental omnibus motion/motion to reargue and reconsider, seeking, among other things, a court order dismissing the remaining counts of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, Warren County Court held that Warren County was the proper geographical jurisdiction for the retrial of the four remaining counts. Warren County Court subsequently dismissed the count of falsifying business records in the first degree for insufficient evidence.

Petitioner then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition*to enjoin the prosecution of the three grand larceny counts in Warren County Court. The Warren County District Attorney [DA], in rebuttal, contended, "prohibition does not properly lie as other remedies are available, and that 'particular effect jurisdiction'** was demonstrated by the negative impact of Petitioner's conduct on the availability of emergency medical care in Warren County."

The Appellate Division opined that for "particular effect jurisdiction" to attach under the circumstances underlying this action, the DA was required to establish not only that Petitioner's alleged conduct had a materially harmful impact to the well-being of the Warren County community as a whole, but also that Petitioner intended his conduct to have such an impact, citing People v Fea, 47 NY2d 70.

Noting the decision of the Court of Appeals in People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, the Appellate Division observed that "[a] defendant has the right at common law and under the State Constitution to be tried in the county where the crime was committed unless the Legislature has provided otherwise". Further, said the Appellate Division, "The burden is on the People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the county where the crime is [being] prosecuted is the proper venue because either the crime was committed there or one of the statutory exceptions is applicable".

Finding that the DA had offered no proof of such intent on the part of Petitioner and had failed to establish that Plaintiff's alleged theft of money in the amount of $3,900 from EMS*** caused such a "materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare" of Warren County to justify the extraordinary exercise of "particular effect jurisdiction", the Appellate Division granted Plaintiff's motion seeking the writ of prohibition.

* A writ of prohibition is a written order by a higher court to a lower court typically forbidding the lower court from taking further action in a case then pending before it.

** See §20.10(4) of the Criminal Procedures Law.

*** Described by the Appellate Division as "a nongovernmental entity serving one town within Warren County".

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

An individual alleged to have stolen funds to be tried in the county where the crime was allegedly committed unless "particular effect jurisdiction" can be shown under the circumstances

A resident of Warren County [Petitioner] had served as a former treasurer of an Emergency Squad [EMS] that essentially operated in a nearby county. Petitioner was indicted by a Warren County grand jury for alleged grand larceny, petit larceny and falsifying business records for his alleged theft of money from EMS from bank accounts at locations in another county. Ultimately a trial was commenced in Warren County with respect three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and one count of falsifying business records in the first degree.

In response to Petitioner's supplemental omnibus motion/motion to reargue and reconsider, seeking, among other things, a court order dismissing the remaining counts of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, Warren County Court held that Warren County was the proper geographical jurisdiction for the retrial of the four remaining counts. Warren County Court subsequently dismissed the count of falsifying business records in the first degree for insufficient evidence.

Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition*to enjoin the prosecution of the three grand larceny counts in Warren County. The Warren County Attorney [DA] contended, "prohibition does not properly lie as other remedies are available, and that 'particular effect jurisdiction'** was demonstrated by the negative impact of Petitioner's conduct on the availability of emergency medical care in Warren County."

The Appellate Division opined that for "particular effect jurisdiction" to attach in these circumstances, the DA was required to establish not only that Petitioner's alleged conduct had a materially harmful impact to the well-being of the Warren County community as a whole, but also that Petitioner intended his conduct to have such an impact, citing People v Fea, 47 NY2d 70.

Observing People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, noted the long-standing principle that "[a] defendant has the right at common law and under the State Constitution to be tried in the county where the crime was committed unless the Legislature has provided otherwise", the Appellate Division said that "The burden is on the People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the county where the crime is prosecuted is the proper venue because either the crime was committed there or one of the statutory exceptions is applicable".

Finding that the DA had offered no proof of such intent on the part of Petitioner and had failed to establish that Plaintiff's theft of money in the amount of $3,900 from EMS, a nongovernmental entity serving one town within Warren County, caused such a "materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare" of Warren County to justify the extraordinary exercise of particular effect jurisdiction and granted Plaintiff's motion seeking the writ of prohibition.

* A writ of prohibition is a written order by a higher court to a lower court typically forbidding the lower court from taking further action in a case then pending before it.

** See §20.10(4) of the Criminal Procedures Law.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.