typographical error in New York

2024In similar circumstances where a certificate of disposition or other court document clearly contains a clerical error, courts have permitted amendments to said documents to accurately reflect the facts of the case ( see People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018] [certificate of conviction must be amended to reflect proper subsection where it incorrectly recited that the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree under PL section 160.10(2) instead of section 160.10(1)], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2006] ["the certificate

2024In similar circumstances where a certificate of disposition or other court document clearly contains a clerical error, courts have permitted amendments to said documents to accurately reflect the facts of the case ( see People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018] [certificate of conviction must be amended to reflect proper subsection where it incorrectly recited that the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree under PL section 160.10(2) instead of section 160.10(1)], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2006] ["the certificate

2024Moreover, since the date and time of the offense is not a substantive element of the crime charged, then the accusatory instrument need not give an exact date and time, but only an approximation ( People v. Morris, 61 NY2d at 295 [1984]; see also People v. Sedlock, 8 NY3d 535, 538 [2007]).

2024Moreover, since the date and time of the offense is not a substantive element of the crime charged, then the accusatory instrument need not give an exact date and time, but only an approximation ( People v. Morris, 61 NY2d at 295 [1984]; see also People v. Sedlock, 8 NY3d 535, 538 [2007]).

2017Further, petitioner was not improperly denied the right to call a correction officer who had previously confiscated religious oil from him, as the officer was not present for or involved in the cell search underlying the second misbehavior report and his testimony was not shown to be relevant (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 139 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2016]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017Further, petitioner was not improperly denied the right to call a correction officer who had previously confiscated religious oil from him, as the officer was not present for or involved in the cell search underlying the second misbehavior report and his testimony was not shown to be relevant (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 139 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2016]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017With regard to petitioner’s challenge that the date of the fighting incident was incorrect on the first misbehavior report, the Hearing Officer credited the testimony of the report’s author that this was a typographical error and that the incident had occurred on the same date as the cell search recorded on the second report; the correct date of the fighting incident was also documented in the fight investigation memorandum prepared by another correction officer and in the medical records (see Matter of Corp v Venettozzi, 139 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2016]).

2017With regard to petitioner’s challenge that the date of the fighting incident was incorrect on the first misbehavior report, the Hearing Officer credited the testimony of the report’s author that this was a typographical error and that the incident had occurred on the same date as the cell search recorded on the second report; the correct date of the fighting incident was also documented in the fight investigation memorandum prepared by another correction officer and in the medical records (see Matter of Corp v Venettozzi, 139 AD3d 1228, 1228 [2016]).

2017Further, petitioner was not improperly denied the right to call a correction officer who had previously confiscated religious oil from him, as the officer was not present for or involved in the cell search underlying the second misbehavior report and his testimony was not shown to be relevant (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 139 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2016]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

2017Further, petitioner was not improperly denied the right to call a correction officer who had previously confiscated religious oil from him, as the officer was not present for or involved in the cell search underlying the second misbehavior report and his testimony was not shown to be relevant (see Matter of Jones v Fischer, 139 AD3d 1219, 1220 [2016]; Matter of Sanders v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2015], appeal dismissed 26 NY3d 964 [2015]).

1995For instance, the prosecution would be barred from fixing a typographical error that caused a count in the indictment to state that the crime took place in a future year (People v Van Every, 222 NY 74, supra), but allowed to amend the indictment if no count had been stated at all.” (People v Perez, supra, 83 NY2d, at 275 .) Van Every (supra) was pertinent to Perez (supra) in its analysis of the common law and its conclusion that an amendment of an indictment was improper if the amendment proposed to cure what a court had to find on the basis of common law or statute was the failure to state a

1995For instance, the prosecution would be barred from fixing a typographical error that caused a count in the indictment to state that the crime took place in a future year (People v Van Every, 222 NY 74, supra), but allowed to amend the indictment if no count had been stated at all.” (People v Perez, supra, 83 NY2d, at 275 .) Van Every (supra) was pertinent to Perez (supra) in its analysis of the common law and its conclusion that an amendment of an indictment was improper if the amendment proposed to cure what a court had to find on the basis of common law or statute was the failure to state a

2020This Court reversed and reinstated the conviction, explaining that although a conviction could not be upheld if it was obtained “without jurisdiction, even though the record evidence stamps defendant plainly guilty,” amending the typographical error in the date did not rise to that level (Easton, 307 NY at 338 ).

2019We recognize that case law has been inconsistent in this area. [FN1] Prior to the enactment of the Criminal [*3] Procedure Law, the Court of Appeals, in People v Easton (307 NY 336, 338 [1954]), approved a City Court's order granting the People's pretrial motion, over defense counsel's objection, to amend the date of an incident alleged in an information, which charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated, from December 17, 1953 to December 17, 1952, finding that the amendment was "made solely to correct an obvious typographical error in the information." In Easton , as in the case at

2016The certificate of conviction therefore must be aprended to correct that error (see generally People v Kemp, 112 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2013]; People v Smoke, 43 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]).

2016The certificate of conviction therefore must be aprended to correct that error (see generally People v Kemp, 112 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2013]; People v Smoke, 43 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]).

2016The certificate of conviction therefore must be aprended to correct that error (see generally People v Kemp, 112 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2013]; People v Smoke, 43 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]).

2016The certificate of conviction therefore must be aprended to correct that error (see generally People v Kemp, 112 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2013]; People v Smoke, 43 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1039 [2008]).

2015We note at the outset that the appeal from the amended order must be dismissed because the amended order did not effect a “material or substantial change” to the order in appeal No. 1 (Matter of Kolasz v Levitt, 63 AD2d 777, 779 [1978]).

2015We note at the outset that the appeal from the amended order must be dismissed because the amended order did not effect a “material or substantial change” to the order in appeal No. 1 (Matter of Kolasz v Levitt, 63 AD2d 777, 779 [1978]).

2013Assn. v Stern, 14 AD3d 656, 657 [2005]; Gross v Castleton Hous.

2013Assn. v Stern, 14 AD3d 656, 657 [2005]; Gross v Castleton Hous.

2024Moreover, since the date and time of the offense is not a substantive element of the crime charged, then the accusatory instrument need not give an exact date and time, but only an approximation ( People v. Morris, 61 NY2d at 295 [1984]; see also People v. Sedlock, 8 NY3d 535, 538 [2007]).

2024Moreover, since the date and time of the offense is not a substantive element of the crime charged, then the accusatory instrument need not give an exact date and time, but only an approximation ( People v. Morris, 61 NY2d at 295 [1984]; see also People v. Sedlock, 8 NY3d 535, 538 [2007]).

2024In similar circumstances where a certificate of disposition or other court document clearly contains a clerical error, courts have permitted amendments to said documents to accurately reflect the facts of the case ( see People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018] [certificate of conviction must be amended to reflect proper subsection where it incorrectly recited that the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree under PL section 160.10(2) instead of section 160.10(1)], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2006] ["the certificate

2024In similar circumstances where a certificate of disposition or other court document clearly contains a clerical error, courts have permitted amendments to said documents to accurately reflect the facts of the case ( see People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018] [certificate of conviction must be amended to reflect proper subsection where it incorrectly recited that the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree under PL section 160.10(2) instead of section 160.10(1)], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2006] ["the certificate

2015Plaintiffs alternative argument, that it had the authority to bring the foreclosure action based on the servicing guidelines of Freddie Mac, which defendant alleges is the holder of the note, is not supported by any evidence in the record (see US Bank N.A. v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 577 [2014]).

2015Plaintiffs alternative argument, that it had the authority to bring the foreclosure action based on the servicing guidelines of Freddie Mac, which defendant alleges is the holder of the note, is not supported by any evidence in the record (see US Bank N.A. v Faruque, 120 AD3d 575, 577 [2014]).

2014The record establishes that respondents complied with the requirements of special condition No. 10 and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, she was not otherwise deprived of due process (see generally Matter of Cioppa v Apostol, 301 AD2d 987, 990 [2003]; Matter of Twin Town Little League v Town of Poestenkill, 249 AD2d 811, 812-813 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 806 [1998]).

2014The record establishes that respondents complied with the requirements of special condition No. 10 and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, she was not otherwise deprived of due process (see generally Matter of Cioppa v Apostol, 301 AD2d 987, 990 [2003]; Matter of Twin Town Little League v Town of Poestenkill, 249 AD2d 811, 812-813 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 806 [1998]).

2014The record establishes that respondents complied with the requirements of special condition No. 10 and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, she was not otherwise deprived of due process (see generally Matter of Cioppa v Apostol, 301 AD2d 987, 990 [2003]; Matter of Twin Town Little League v Town of Poestenkill, 249 AD2d 811, 812-813 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 806 [1998]).

2014The record establishes that respondents complied with the requirements of special condition No. 10 and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, she was not otherwise deprived of due process (see generally Matter of Cioppa v Apostol, 301 AD2d 987, 990 [2003]; Matter of Twin Town Little League v Town of Poestenkill, 249 AD2d 811, 812-813 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 806 [1998]).

2013Where a sentencing court is required to impose a consecutive sentence, it is deemed to have done so even, as here, in the absence of an express judicial directive to that effect (see Matter of Garcia v Fischer, 77 AD3d 999, 999-1000 [2010]; People ex rel.

2013Where a sentencing court is required to impose a consecutive sentence, it is deemed to have done so even, as here, in the absence of an express judicial directive to that effect (see Matter of Garcia v Fischer, 77 AD3d 999, 999-1000 [2010]; People ex rel.

2012Although petitioner contends that an incorrect identification number appeared on the documentation containing the positive test results, this discrepancy was adequately explained by the testing officer who testified at the hearing that this was a typographical error and further confirmed that the sample that tested positive for opiates belonged to petitioner, thereby remedying any deficiency (see Matter of Vargas v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026, 1026-1027 [2003]).

2012Although petitioner contends that an incorrect identification number appeared on the documentation containing the positive test results, this discrepancy was adequately explained by the testing officer who testified at the hearing that this was a typographical error and further confirmed that the sample that tested positive for opiates belonged to petitioner, thereby remedying any deficiency (see Matter of Vargas v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026, 1026-1027 [2003]).

2012Although petitioner contends that an incorrect identification number appeared on the documentation containing the positive test results, this discrepancy was adequately explained by the testing officer who testified at the hearing that this was a typographical error and further confirmed that the sample that tested positive for opiates belonged to petitioner, thereby remedying any deficiency (see Matter of Vargas v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026, 1026-1027 [2003]).

2012Although petitioner contends that an incorrect identification number appeared on the documentation containing the positive test results, this discrepancy was adequately explained by the testing officer who testified at the hearing that this was a typographical error and further confirmed that the sample that tested positive for opiates belonged to petitioner, thereby remedying any deficiency (see Matter of Vargas v Bezio, 69 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; Matter of Victor v Goord, 309 AD2d 1026, 1026-1027 [2003]).

2024In similar circumstances where a certificate of disposition or other court document clearly contains a clerical error, courts have permitted amendments to said documents to accurately reflect the facts of the case ( see People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018] [certificate of conviction must be amended to reflect proper subsection where it incorrectly recited that the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree under PL section 160.10(2) instead of section 160.10(1)], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]; People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286 [4th Dept 2006] ["the certificate

2023Upon our review, however, we find that the record reflects that this discrepancy was merely a typographical error as the facts alleged in the felony complaint made clear that the crime intended to be charged was Penal Law § 205.25 (2) ( see People v Jackson , 128 AD3d 1279 , 1279-1280 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; see also People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]).

2023Upon our review, however, we find that the record reflects that this discrepancy was merely a typographical error as the facts alleged in the felony complaint made clear that the crime intended to be charged was Penal Law § 205.25 (2) ( see People v Jackson , 128 AD3d 1279 , 1279-1280 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]; see also People v Gotham , 158 AD3d 1299 , 1300 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1014 [2018]).

2018The record establishes that the discrepancy between the factual allegations of count two and the crime charged therein is the result "solely [of] a typographical error" inasmuch as the facts alleged in count two of the SCI make it clear that the crime intended to be charged is robbery in the second degree as a violation of Penal Law § 160.10 (1), and we conclude that the typographical error does not render the SCI jurisdictionally defective ( People v Jackson , 128 AD3d 1279, 1279-1280 [3d Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 930 [2015]).

2023Therefore, the motion court should not have granted the People's application to reopen the SORA hearing by treating it as a motion for renewal. [FN2] Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing "to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact" on a SORA decision ( People v Wroten , 286 AD2d 189, 196 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]; see also People v Pendergrast , 48 AD3d 356, 356 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 714 [2008][finding that the court properly exercised its discretion when it granted the People's motion to "reopen" the SORA proceeding a

2023Therefore, the motion court should not have granted the People's application to reopen the SORA hearing by treating it as a motion for renewal. [FN2] Second, a court has an inherent authority to reopen a hearing "to correct its own order to rectify a mistake of law or fact" on a SORA decision ( People v Wroten , 286 AD2d 189, 196 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 610 [2002]; see also People v Pendergrast , 48 AD3d 356, 356 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 714 [2008][finding that the court properly exercised its discretion when it granted the People's motion to "reopen" the SORA proceeding a

2026Accordingly, we modify the orders of fact-finding and disposition ( see Matter of Jonathan F. , 290 AD2d 385, 386 [1st Dept 2002]).