PEOPLE v. GAYLE (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew D'Emic, J.), rendered July 17, 2023, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first 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 was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.  At sentencing, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions of probation, including Condition No. 14, requiring the defendant to support dependants and meet other family responsibilities, and Condition No. 28, requiring the defendant to consent to a search by a probation officer of his person, vehicle, and place of abode, and the seizure of any illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, gun/firearm, or other weapon or contraband found during the search.

Pursuant to Penal Law § 65.10(1), conditions of probation shall be such as the court, in its discretion, deems reasonably necessary to insure that a defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist the defendant to do so (see People v. Dranchuck, 203 AD3d 741, 742).  In Penal Law § 65.10(2), the Legislature set forth a list of conditions intended as rehabilitative (see People v. Archibald, 241 AD3d 837, 838).  Sentencing courts may also impose conditions requiring that the defendant comply with any other reasonable condition as the court shall determine to be necessary or appropriate to ameliorate the conduct of which gave rise to the offense or to prevent the incarceration of the defendant (see Penal Law § 65.10[5] ).  Therefore, sentencing courts may require a defendant to consent to searches by his or her probation officer for weapons or other contraband, so long as the condition is reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Mantilla, 236 AD3d 925, 926).

Here, the Supreme Court properly imposed Condition No. 28 upon the defendant.  Inasmuch as the defendant showed the complainant a business card bearing a police insignia in the course of the underlying offense, this condition was individually tailored in relation to the underlying offense and reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or necessary to ensure that the defendant will lead a law-abiding life (see People v. Archibald, 241 AD3d at 839).

However, since the People correctly concede that Condition No. 14 was not individually tailored in relation to the offense (see Penal Law § 65.10), we delete that condition.

The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LANDICINO and QUIRK, JJ., concur.