PEOPLE v. BURDEN (2020)

ORDERED that the amended judgment of conviction is affirmed.

On March 30, 2017, defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of failing to keep his private property free of litter, in violation of Brookhaven Town Code § 45-4 (D). Defendant was sentenced to a conditional discharge by which he agreed to, among other things, “immediately” put the subject premises into compliance with the violated code section and to consent to a reinspection of the property to ensure compliance.

On September 5, 2017, a declaration of delinquency was issued based upon allegations that defendant was not in compliance with the terms of the conditional discharge. A hearing was conducted, at which an investigator for the Town of Brookhaven testified that, on June 14, 2017, he had visited the property. There he saw, and took multiple photographs of, the considerable amount of litter and debris on both the front and back yards. The front yard, and the large mass of litter strewn about it, were visible from the public street. The backyard was surrounded by a six-foot fence over which the town investigator was able to observe and take photographs of that yard without physically entering it. The District Court found that defendant had failed to comply with the condition of his conditional discharge requiring that he clean up, and clear out, the litter and debris on the premises. Defendant was resentenced to pay a $2,000 fine and to another conditional discharge, with the requirement that, within 45 days, he “maintain the property free of all litter and debris.”

The District Court's finding was supported by the preponderance of the testimonial and photographic evidence (see CPL 410.70 [3]). Defendant's contention that, to sustain the People's burden of proof at the hearing, the prosecutor had to prove defendant's identity and ownership or control of the premises, and that he had committed the underlying code violation, is without merit in view of defendant's admission of guilt and acceptance of the conditional discharge and its attendant conditions.

The town investigator did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when he viewed and photographed the backyard over the fence. Defendant consented to reinspection as a condition of the conditional discharge. In any event, the large amount of debris and litter on the front yard alone demonstrated defendant's noncompliance with the conditions of the conditional discharge without reliance upon the additional testimonial and photographic evidence of the backyard litter.

Accordingly, the amended judgment of conviction is affirmed.

ADAMS, P.J., RUDERMAN and EMERSON, JJ., concur.