Judicial Insight
Back to feed
in part (fees waived for defendant)CriminalCourt of AppealsAppeal

People v. Brown

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Sep 30, 2026
Docket
2024-02705
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05549
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 2, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. : convicted the defendant and imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    in part (fees waived for defendant)

TL;DR

  1. 1The court considered if mandatory surcharges for a young defendant should be waived.
  2. 2The court decided to remove these fees due to the defendant's age and indigency.
  3. 3The key reason was the law allowing waivers for defendants under 21 with financial hardship.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Can mandatory surcharges be waived for young defendants?

    Holding · Yes, the court can waive fees for those under 21 if they cannot afford them.

Why it matters

This decision impacts young defendants facing financial hardship, potentially reducing their financial burden by waiving certain court fees.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Court considers waiving fees for young man due to his age

  1. 1A young man pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges.
  2. 2He's facing mandatory surcharges and fees as part of his sentence.
  3. 3The court weighs if being under 21 and indigent can remove these fees.

Can being young and broke waive mandatory fees in court?

Be the first juror

Parties

  • Prosecution

    People

  • Appellee

    Brown

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
People v Brown 2026 NY Slip Op 05549 September 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. The People of the State of New York, respondent, v Pernell Brown, appellant. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2024-02705, (Ind. No. 75854/22) Colleen D. Duffy, J.P. Betsy Barros Lourdes M. Ventura Lisa S. Ottley, JJ. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Jordan Goodson of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Melissa Owen of counsel; Caleb Otero on the brief), for respondent. [*1] DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), rendered March 27, 2024, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of a mandatory surcharge and fees; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. "Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) permits the waiver of surcharges and fees for individuals, like the defendant, who were less than 21 years old at the time of the subject crime" (People v Cabrera, 222 AD3d 878, 879). Pursuant to the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction and in light of the defendant's indigency and age at the time of the crime, and as consented to by the People, we modify the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed upon the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Odesanya, 225 AD3d 631, 632). DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener