PEOPLE v. ZINO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), dated May 28, 2024.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

On October 11, 2023, a vehicle operated by the defendant allegedly struck a pedestrian crossing the street.  The pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.  The defendant was arrested and charged by grand jury indictment with, among other crimes, criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10) and reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212).  The defendant moved, inter alia, to dismiss the indictment.  In an order dated May 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to sustain those charges.  The People appeal.

A court reviewing the legal sufficiency of an indictment must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and determine whether the evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt after trial (see People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248, 251, 630 N.Y.S.2d 989, 654 N.E.2d 1237;  People v. Holloway, 210 A.D.3d 1007, 1007, 179 N.Y.S.3d 145).  In the context of grand jury proceedings, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Bello, 92 N.Y.2d 523, 526, 683 N.Y.S.2d 168, 705 N.E.2d 1209;  People v. Dunn, 232 A.D.3d 806, 808, 220 N.Y.S.3d 443).  This Court's inquiry is limited to assessing whether the facts, if proven, and the logical inferences flowing therefrom, supply proof of each element of the charged crimes (see People v. Dunn, 232 A.D.3d at 808, 220 N.Y.S.3d 443;  People v. Holloway, 210 A.D.3d at 1008, 179 N.Y.S.3d 145).  The existence of innocent inferences arising from the evidence has no bearing upon the legal sufficiency inquiry (see People v. Deegan, 69 N.Y.2d 976, 979, 516 N.Y.S.2d 651, 509 N.E.2d 345;  People v. Castro, 202 A.D.3d 815, 816, 162 N.Y.S.3d 437).

“A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person” (Penal Law § 125.10).  A person acts with criminal negligence in this context when that person “fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that death will result (id. § 15.05[4];  see People v. Gaworecki, 37 N.Y.3d 225, 230, 154 N.Y.S.3d 33, 175 N.E.3d 915).  “[T]he carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and ․ the carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community's general sense of right and wrong” (People v. Boutin, 75 N.Y.2d 692, 695–696, 556 N.Y.S.2d 1, 555 N.E.2d 253).  “Moreover, criminal negligence requires a defendant to have engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of a proscribed result;  nonperception of a risk, even if the proscribed result occurs, is not enough” (People v. Conway, 6 N.Y.3d 869, 872, 816 N.Y.S.2d 731, 849 N.E.2d 954 [brackets and internal quotation marks omitted];  see People v. Cabrera, 10 N.Y.3d 370, 376, 858 N.Y.S.2d 74, 887 N.E.2d 1132).  Here, the evidence presented to the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, did not demonstrate that the defendant's conduct rose to the level of moral blameworthiness required to sustain a charge of criminally negligent homicide (see People v. McGrantham, 12 N.Y.3d 892, 894, 885 N.Y.S.2d 244, 913 N.E.2d 936;  People v. Cabrera, 10 N.Y.3d at 377, 858 N.Y.S.2d 74, 887 N.E.2d 1132).

In addition, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the count of the indictment charging the defendant with reckless driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212).  The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally insufficient to support the charge that the defendant operated his vehicle “under such circumstances as to show a reckless disregard of the consequences” (People v. Grogan, 260 N.Y. 138, 144, 183 N.E. 273;  see People v. Pino, 162 A.D.3d 910, 912, 78 N.Y.S.3d 408).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient.

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.