People v. Kim, 91 N.Y.2d 407 (1998)
Under New York law, a crime victim’s insurer can be a recipient of restitution for medical expenses paid, and courts can impose joint and several liability for restitution on perpetrators of a crime.
Summary
Kim pleaded guilty to attempted murder, robbery, and weapons possession after shooting the victim during a failed robbery. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution for the victim’s medical expenses. Kim appealed, arguing that the court should have held a hearing on the restitution amount, that restitution cannot be ordered to reimburse the victim’s insurer, and that he should only be responsible for a portion of the total medical expenses, not the entire amount. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the restitution order, holding that no hearing was required because the presentence report provided sufficient evidence of the expenses, insurers can be considered victims for restitution purposes, and imposing joint and several liability is appropriate in such cases.
Facts
Defendant Kim and two accomplices attempted to rob the victim at his home. During the robbery, Kim shot the victim three times. The victim incurred $37,754.07 in medical expenses as a result of the shooting. The victim’s health insurer paid $35,301.35 of those expenses. Kim pleaded guilty to attempted murder, attempted robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.
Procedural History
The County Court convicted Kim based on his guilty plea and sentenced him. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction and sentence. The New York Court of Appeals granted Kim leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing to determine the actual amount of the victim’s medical expenses before ordering restitution.
2. Whether the trial court erred in ordering restitution to reimburse the victim’s health insurer for medical expenses it paid.
3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing joint and several liability on Kim for the full amount of the victim’s medical expenses, rather than dividing the amount among Kim and his accomplices.
Holding
1. No, because the record contained sufficient evidence to support the finding of the amount of loss, and the defendant did not request a hearing.
2. No, because the statute authorizes restitution for actual out-of-pocket loss, and includes a crime victim’s representative, which includes an insurer.
3. No, because imposing joint and several liability is consistent with the purposes of restitution and with tort principles.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the hearing, the Court of Appeals noted that Penal Law § 60.27(2) mandates a hearing only if the record lacks sufficient evidence or if the defendant requests one. Here, the presentence report itemized the medical expenses, and Kim’s attorney conceded the accuracy of the amount. Thus, the court had a sufficient evidentiary basis. The court cited People v. Consalvo, 89 N.Y.2d 140, 145 (1996), stating that a defendant’s concessions may furnish the facts necessary to establish the amount of restitution.
Addressing restitution to the insurer, the court pointed to Penal Law § 60.27(1), which authorizes restitution for “actual out-of-pocket loss caused” by the offense, and § 60.27(4)(b), which includes a crime victim’s “representative” as defined in Executive Law § 621(6). Executive Law § 621(6) defines representative broadly. The court cited People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157 (1986), emphasizing the legislative policy favoring restitution for all actual monetary losses caused by criminal conduct. The insurer, being legally obligated to pay the victim’s expenses, can be classified as a victim in its own right. The court referenced People v. Cruz, 81 N.Y.2d 996, 997-998 (1993) and People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157-158 (1986).
On joint and several liability, the court observed the statute’s silence but stated that imposing such liability aligns with the goals of restitution: to make victims whole and to rehabilitate offenders. The court stated that requiring all defendants to take responsibility for the entire harm promotes these goals. The court cited People v. Hall-Wilson, 69 N.Y.2d 154, 157 (1986) and People v. Turco, 130 A.D.2d 785, 786 (2d Dept. 1987). Furthermore, the court noted the consistency with tort principles of liability for actors in concert.