PEOPLE EX REL DAROCHA v. MAGINLEY LIDDIE (2025)

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered July 22, 2025, denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the petition granted and the matter remanded to the bail-setting court for further proceedings.

The habeas court erred when it concluded that the bail court (Althea Drysdale, J.) did not abuse its discretion in continuing monetary bail.  The bail court did not comply with the statutory requirements of CPL 510.20(3) and failed to consider the implication of the dismissal of the underlying criminal matters on the initial bail determination pursuant to the harm-on-harm provision of CPL 510.10(4)(t).  Furthermore, the bail court did not make an individual determination of flight risk, nor did it analyze the statutorily required CPL 510.10(1) factors.  Thus, the court could not “discern [the bail court's] rationale because it did not identify one” (People ex rel. Kon v. Maginley–Liddie, ––– N.Y.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 05785, *2 [2025]).

The bail court also erred when it did not consider the implication of the dismissal of the underlying cases on the harm-on-harm analysis.  The plain language of CPL 510.10(4)(t) requires the People to show that there exists an underlying offense involving harm to an identifiable person or property.  No such offense existed on June 17, 2025, when Justice Drysdale heard petitioner's request for a review of the previous securing order, as the two underlying cases had been dismissed, and no such offense exists now.

Since the bail court abused its discretion and the habeas court erred in denying a writ of habeas corpus, the petition must be reinstated and granted.  The matter is remanded to the bail-setting court for further proceedings.