PEOPLE v. BROWN (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered September 5, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a firearm and sentencing him to five years of probation, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking the condition of probation requiring him to pay $375 in surcharge and fees as a condition of his probation, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant validly waived of his right to appeal (see People v. Thomas, 34 N.Y.3d 545, 559, 122 N.Y.S.3d 226, 144 N.E.3d 970 [2019], cert denied 589 U.S. 1302, 140 S.Ct. 2634, 206 L.Ed.2d 512 [2020]), which forecloses review of his challenge to the denial of his motion to controvert a search warrant and review of his claim that his sentence is excessive (see People v. Hines, 237 A.D.3d 549, 229 N.Y.S.3d 424 [1st Dept. 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 1052, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2025];  People v. Samuels, 195 A.D.3d 570, 570–571, 146 N.Y.S.3d 483 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1148, 159 N.Y.S.3d 348, 180 N.E.3d 512 [2021]).  As an alternative holding, we find that the warrant was based on probable cause (see People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639, 529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409 [1988];  see also Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 [1969];  Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 [1964]), and did not lack particularity.  We also perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

However, defendant's challenge to the condition of probation requiring that he pay the mandatory surcharge and court fees survives his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v. Arias, 210 A.D.3d 593, 594, 179 N.Y.S.3d 47 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 1109, 186 N.Y.S.3d 844, 208 N.E.3d 72 [2023]).  Defendant, the caregiver for his disabled brother, works at construction when able but remains indigent.  We find that the imposition of the $375 sum, comprised of the mandatory surcharge, crime victim's assistance fees, and DNA fees, as a condition of defendant's probation will not assist in ensuring that he leads a law-abiding life and is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation (see People v. Percy, 234 A.D.3d 619, 620, 226 N.Y.S.3d 60 [1st Dept. 2025]).  Accordingly, that condition is stricken.  We note that the People do not oppose this relief.

We decline to grant defendant's request for a certificate of relief from disabilities.  As indicated by the sentencing court, defendant may reapply for a certificate of relief from disabilities if he “does well on probation for an appropriate period of time.”