| People v Williams |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05876 [164 AD3d 845] |
| August 22, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lottice Williams, Appellant. |
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel),for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from two amended judgments of the County Court, DutchessCounty (Stephen L. Greller, J.), both rendered December 16, 2015, revoking two sentences ofprobation previously imposed by the same court (Gerald V. Hayes, J.), upon a finding that sheviolated conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing terms of imprisonment upon herprevious convictions of welfare fraud in the third degree under indictment No. 42/02, andcriminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree under superior court informationNo. 225/02.
Ordered that the amended judgments are affirmed.
The CPL provides for a fact-finding hearing upon a declaration of probation delinquency atwhich the defendant is entitled to counsel and may cross-examine witnesses and present evidence(see CPL 410.70 [1], [3]-[4]; People v Donohue, 283 AD2d 586 [2001];People v Adams, 47 AD2d 928, 928-929 [1975]). However, " '[a] hearing on aprobation violation is a summary, informal procedure which does not require strict adherence tothe rules of evidence' " (Peoplev Washington, 55 AD3d 933, 933 [2008], quoting People v Minard, 161 AD2d607 [1990]; see People v Almonte,50 AD3d 696 [2008]; People v Tyrrell, 101 AD2d 946 [1984]; Whitree v State ofNew York, 26 AD2d 720, 721 [1966]).
Here, the County Court properly took judicial notice of its own file indicating that themaximum dates of expiration of the defendant's probation obligations had been extended (People v Sanders, 112 AD3d 748,749-750 [2013], affd 25 NY3d 337 [2015]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, theevidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the defendant violated theconditions of her probation by, inter alia, failing to report to probation, engaging in criminalbehavior, and failing to pay restitution as ordered. Thus, even if the defendant could establish onthis record that she was improperly denied access to evidence, the error would be harmless inlight of the undisputed evidence establishing that she violated the conditions of her probation (see People v Sacco, 44 AD3d1076, 1077 [2007]; see also People v Donohue, 283 AD2d 586 [2001]).
Upon finding that the defendant violated a condition of her probation, the County Court wasauthorized to revoke probation and sentence the defendant to authorized terms of imprisonment(see CPL 410.70 [5]; People vBeach, 118 AD3d 905 [2014]; People v Armstrong, 60 AD3d [*2]779 [2009]; People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007]). Contrary to thedefendant's contention, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). Chambers, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Connolly, JJ., concur.