PEOPLE v. HOUGH (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven J. Hornstein, J.), rendered May 1, 2025, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to three years of probation, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of striking probation conditions 10, 15, 22, 23, and 24, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant's constitutional challenges to condition 7 of his probation, requiring him to “[a]void injurious or vicious habits;  refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places;  and ․ not consort with disreputable people,” and to condition 24, requiring him to “[r]efrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or members of a gang,” as vague and overbroad and as violating his First Amendment rights are unpreserved (see People v. Acosta, 245 AD3d 608, 609 [1st Dept 2026];  see also People v. Cabrera, 41 NY3d 35, 42–51 [2023] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.  As an alternative holding, we find them unavailing (see Acosta, 245 AD3d at 609).

Defendant's statutory challenges to nine conditions of probation are unpreserved (see People v. Brazeal, ––– NY3d ––––, ––––, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op 03910, *5 [2026], and we decline to review them in the interest of justice except for conditions 10, 15, 22, 23 and 24.  With respect to condition 10, the imposition of the $250 sum, comprising the mandatory surcharge, crime victim's assistance fees, and DNA fees, as a condition of defendant's probation will not assist in ensuring he leads a law-abiding life and is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation (see People v. Percy, 234 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2025] ).  Accordingly, that condition is stricken.

Moreover, conditions 15 and 23, requiring defendant to submit to alcohol and illegal substance abuse testing, are unrelated to his rehabilitation because “there is no evidence that defendant's offense involved any drugs or alcohol, [and] the Department of Probation did not conclude that defendant required substance abuse or related treatment” (see People v. Rivas, 248 AD3d 692, 693 [1st Dept 2026] ).  Condition 22 requiring defendant to submit to mental health treatment must also be stricken because there is no indication that defendant suffered from any mental health issues, the “People do not allege or provide any evidence to dispute this, and the Department of Probation did not make any recommendation with respect to mental health treatment” (id. at 694).

Lastly, condition 24, requiring defendant to refrain from wearing or displaying gang paraphernalia and having any association with a gang or its members is not reasonably related to his rehabilitation as there is no evidence that defendant had a history of gang affiliation or that his offense was connected to gang activity (see id. at 693 People v. Balogh, 245 A.D.3d 572, 574 [1st Dept 2026], lv denied 45 NY3d 1014 [2026] ).  We note that the People do not oppose the striking of these conditions.

We perceive no basis for reducing defendant's sentence.