| People v Youngs |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 01262 [169 AD3d 1155] |
| February 21, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1](February 21, 2019)
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JosephS. Youngs, Appellant. |
John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant.
William G. Gabor, District Attorney, Wampsville (J. Scott Porter of counsel), for respondent.
Rumsey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (McDermott, J.),rendered June 4, 2015, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of predatory sexual assaultagainst a child, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangeringthe welfare of a child (two counts).
In January 2014, defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child, criminalsexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, promoting a sexual performance by achild, possessing a sexual performance by a child and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.On the first day of trial, the People withdrew the charges of promoting a sexual performance by a childand possessing a sexual performance by a child and, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted ofthe remaining charges. Defendant was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to anaggregate prison term of 41 years for his convictions of predatory sexual assault against a child, criminalsexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child (onecount), with periods of postrelease supervision. He was also sentenced to a concurrent prison term forthe second endangering conviction. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues that County Court failed to rule on his motion to suppress oral and writtenstatements that he made to law enforcement officers and, therefore, the appeal should be held inabeyance and the matter remitted to County Court for a ruling on the motion. The People agree. On thefirst day of trial, defendant directed County Court's attention to the absence of a ruling on hissuppression motion, to which the court replied that it had ruled on the admissibility of his statements atthe Huntley hearing. However, although County Court conducted a Huntley hearing, therecord does not reflect that it issued a decision on the motion or in any manner "set forth on the recordits findings of fact, its conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination" (CPL 710.60 [6]). A"decision denying [a suppression] motion without explanation not only transgresses CPL 710.60 (6),which requires the court to set forth 'the reasons for its determination,' but also effectively precludesinformed appellate review" (People v Bonilla, 82 NY2d 825, 827-828 [1993]). For thatreason, we must remit the matter to County Court for it to set forth on the record or in a writtendecision its determination on the suppression motion in accordance with CPL 710.60 (6) (see People v Matthews, 147 AD3d1206, 1207-1208 [2017]).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Devine and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, andmatter remitted to the County Court of Madison County for further proceedings not inconsistent withthis Court's decision.