15 N.Y.3d 213 (2010)

The Supreme Court of New York possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses.

Summary

Defendant appealed her conviction for attempted aggravated harassment, arguing the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because she was prosecuted via misdemeanor information instead of an indictment or superior court information (SCI). The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that even if the case was tried in Supreme Court, that court possesses concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses. The Court also found that the defendant’s claim regarding the transfer of her case to Supreme Court was akin to an improper venue claim, which was waived by failing to raise it at trial, and that the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient.

Facts

Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree after a nonjury trial. She appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the case was prosecuted via a misdemeanor information, not an indictment or superior court information (SCI).

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction in a divided decision. One of the Appellate Division dissenters granted the defendant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Supreme Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a misdemeanor case prosecuted on a misdemeanor information, absent an indictment or superior court information?
2. Whether the transfer of the defendant’s case from the New York City Criminal Court to the Supreme Court was impermissible because court rules were not in effect on the date of her conviction?
3. Whether the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally sufficient?

Holding

1. No, because the Supreme Court possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses.
2. No, because the alleged transfer error is the equivalent of an improper venue claim, which is waived if not timely raised.
3. No, because the defendant’s challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument lacks merit.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that even assuming the defendant’s case was tried in Supreme Court, she was not entitled to reversal on jurisdictional grounds. The Court relied on the principle that Supreme Court possesses concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over the trial of unindicted misdemeanor offenses. The court reasoned that the transfer of the case, even if improper, was analogous to a venue issue, not a jurisdictional one, and therefore was waived because the defendant did not object at trial.

The Court emphasized that “venue issues—which relate only to the proper place of trial, rather than to the power of the court to hear and determine the case—are waivable.” Because the defendant failed to object to the transfer in the trial court, the Court of Appeals declined to consider the claim. Finally, the Court briefly dismissed the defendant’s challenge to the jurisdictional sufficiency of the accusatory instrument, finding it without merit.