PEOPLE v. ALDEA (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), rendered May 19, 2023, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence of a term of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting Condition No. 14 from the conditions of probation;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to assault in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of five years of probation.  As part of the sentence of probation imposed on the defendant, the Supreme Court imposed a condition of probation, Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependents and meet other family responsibilities.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), the conditions of probation “shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life or assist him [or her] to do so” (People v. Mensah, 221 A.D.3d 732, 733, 199 N.Y.S.3d 637 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Mantilla, 236 A.D.3d 925, 229 N.Y.S.3d 600).  “In Penal Law § 65.10(2), the Legislature set forth a list of conditions intended to be rehabilitative” (People v. Joseph D., 226 A.D.3d 922, 923, 209 N.Y.S.3d 516;  see People v. Hakes, 32 N.Y.3d 624, 629, 94 N.Y.S.3d 221, 118 N.E.3d 883), including the condition that a defendant “[s]upport his [or her] dependents and meet other family responsibilities” (Penal Law § 65.10[2][f]).  “The statute ‘quite clearly restricts probation conditions to those reasonably related to a defendant's rehabilitation’ ” (People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d 908, 909, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694 [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v. Letterlough, 86 N.Y.2d 259, 265, 631 N.Y.S.2d 105, 655 N.E.2d 146).  All enumerated probation conditions under Penal Law 65.10 must be “tailored to the particular defendant's case” (People v. Letterlough, 86 N.Y.2d at 263, 631 N.Y.S.2d 105, 655 N.E.2d 146).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improperly imposed Condition No. 14.  This condition was “not individually tailored in relation to the offense and therefore, was not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to insure that he will lead a law-abiding life” (People v. Sobers, 235 A.D.3d at 910, 227 N.Y.S.3d 694;  cf.  People v. Archibald, 241 A.D.3d 837, 839, 238 N.Y.S.3d 696).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., VOUTSINAS, TAYLOR and GOLIA, JJ., concur.