In re Eric R., 84 N.Y.2d 1002 (1994)
A failure to hold a juvenile’s initial appearance within ten days of filing a delinquency petition, as required by Family Court Act § 320.2, does not automatically warrant dismissal of the petition if the fact-finding hearing commences within the statutorily required time frame.
Summary
This case addresses the consequences of failing to hold a juvenile’s initial appearance within ten days of filing a delinquency petition, as mandated by Family Court Act § 320.2. Eric R. was charged with burglary and larceny, but his initial appearance occurred more than ten days after the petition was filed. The first petition was dismissed, but refiled. Eric R. then argued the second petition should also be dismissed based on a speedy hearing violation. The Court of Appeals held that a violation of the 10-day rule for the initial appearance, by itself, does not require dismissal with prejudice, so long as the fact-finding hearing commences within sixty days of the initial appearance on the first petition.
Facts
On March 2, 1993, a petition was filed alleging Eric R. committed acts that would constitute burglary and larceny if committed by an adult.
Eric R.’s initial appearance on the petition was not held until March 29, 1993, exceeding the ten-day limit prescribed by Family Court Act § 320.2(1).
The presentment agency conceded it could not show good cause for the delay.
The agency refiled the petition on May 3, 1993, and Eric R. appeared on the second petition on May 11, 1993.
Procedural History
Eric R. moved to dismiss the first petition, arguing a violation of Family Court Act § 320.2(1). Family Court granted the motion, dismissing the petition without prejudice.
Eric R. then moved to dismiss the refiled petition, claiming a violation of his right to a speedy fact-finding hearing under Family Court Act §§ 310.2, 320.2, and 332.1(8). Family Court denied this motion.
Eric R. admitted to acts constituting unlawful possession of a weapon and was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed on probation.
The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted permission to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a failure to hold a juvenile’s initial appearance within ten days of the filing of a delinquency petition, as required by Family Court Act § 320.2(1), warrants dismissal of the petition with prejudice, even if the fact-finding hearing commences within sixty days of the initial appearance.
Holding
No, because the Family Court Act provides specific grounds for dismissal, including a violation of the right to a speedy fact-finding hearing, but does not elevate a violation of the 10-day limit for the initial appearance to a ground for dismissal with prejudice.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that the Family Court Act prescribes procedures and time frames for the juvenile’s initial appearance (Family Ct Act § 320.1).
The Court highlighted that the Legislature has given the 60-day time frame for commencing the fact-finding phase special status, providing an express ground for dismissal for its violation (Family Ct Act § 332.1[8]). The Court contrasts this to the initial appearance, for which there is no such explicit protection.
The Court stated: “While the Legislature has seen fit to give protected status to the 60-day limit for commencing the fact-finding phase by enacting the speedy fact-finding right and by providing an express ground for dismissal for its violation, the time period for holding the initial appearance has not been granted similar protected status.”
The Court emphasized that the Family Court’s power to dismiss a petition is governed by statute, available only in delineated circumstances, such as factual, legal, or jurisdictional defects, or violations of the Statute of Limitations or double jeopardy.
The Court rejected the argument that a late initial appearance necessarily constitutes a violation of the speedy fact-finding right, especially when adjudication is completed within 60 days of the initial appearance.
The Court reasoned that if it accepted the argument that the right to a speedy fact finding attaches to all individual proceedings after the petition is filed, it would have to reach the same conclusion for an untimely probable cause hearing. However, Family Court Act § 325.3(4) provides that for a probable cause hearing violation, “the court may dismiss the petition without prejudice or for good cause shown adjourn the hearing,” indicating a similar relief is appropriate for a belated initial hearing where no separate speedy fact-finding violation occurred.
The court found that requiring a showing of “good cause” for delay before departing from the 10-day limit is not eviscerated by permitting refiling. The original petition was dismissed, jurisdiction over the juvenile was lost, and the presentment agency was required to refile to regain jurisdiction. This is a significant consequence.