People v. Monegro
Docket SCI No. 70645/23 IND. No. 73093/23|Appeal No. 6458-6459|Case No. 2024-00631 2024-03837|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02460
- Docket numbers
- SCI No70645/23 IND. No. 73093/23Appeal No6458-6459Case No2024-00631 2024-03837
Appeal from judgments in Supreme Court, New York County convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree following plea and sentencing.
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two judgments against Brandon Monegro. The court affirmed a January 18, 2024 conviction (amended April 10, 2024) for second-degree assault and a May 7, 2024 guilty plea conviction for third-degree assault, including the sentences. The court held that disorderly conduct was properly included in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense related to the same act charged in the felony complaint. Because the earlier conviction was affirmed, the defendant's argument that his later plea should be vacated as dependent on a reversal is moot.
Issues Decided
- Whether disorderly conduct could be properly charged in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense alongside second-degree assault charged in the felony complaint.
- Whether the defendant's later guilty plea should be vacated if the earlier conviction were reversed.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the statutory standard that joinable lesser non-inclusory offenses must be based on the same act or criminal transaction and not be higher-grade or contain an extra aggravating element. The felony complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant struck a person with a cane causing identifiable injuries, so both second-degree assault and disorderly conduct were based on that same act. Because the earlier conviction was affirmed, the argument that a later plea should be vacated as dependent on a reversal became moot.
Authorities Cited
- People v Pierce14 NY3d 564 (2010)
- CPL 200.20(2)(a)
- People v Perkins230 AD3d 977 (1st Dept 2024)
Parties
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Appellant
- Brandon Monegro
- Judge
- Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.
- Judge
- Kennedy, J.
- Judge
- González, J.
- Judge
- Pitt-Burke, J.
- Judge
- Rosado, J.
- Attorney
- Jenay Nurse Guilford (Center for Appellate Litigation)
- Attorney
- Nathan Morgante (for District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr.)
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Judgment (SCI) rendered
- 2024-01-18
- Judgment (SCI) amended
- 2024-04-10
- Judgment (Indictment) rendered
- 2024-05-07
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to appeal to Court of Appeals
If the defendant wishes to continue challenging the convictions, counsel should evaluate grounds for leave to appeal and file an appropriate application within Court of Appeals deadlines.
- 2
Review sentencing and collateral options
Defense counsel should review whether any post-conviction motions, resentencing requests, or parole-related steps are available under the affirmed judgments.
- 3
Comply with sentences
Unless relief is obtained, the defendant should comply with the terms of incarceration and supervision ordered by the sentencing court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and sentences for second-degree and third-degree assault and held that disorderly conduct was properly charged as a joinable lesser offense.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Brandon Monegro is affected because his convictions and sentences were affirmed; the People’s charging decision was also validated.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- Unless the defendant seeks further review (for example, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals), the affirmed convictions and sentences remain in effect.
- Why was the disorderly conduct charge allowed?
- Because the complaint alleged the same act—striking a person with a cane causing injuries—so the disorderly conduct charge was a joinable lesser offense that did not raise the grade or add an aggravating element.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Monegro - 2026 NY Slip Op 02460 People v Monegro 2026 NY Slip Op 02460 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Monegro, Defendant-Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 SCI No. 70645/23 IND. No. 73093/23|Appeal No. 6458-6459|Case No. 2024-00631 2024-03837| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (David K. Klem of counsel), for appellant. Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nathan Morgante of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J., at plea; Jonathan Svetkey, J., at sentencing), rendered January 18, 2024, as amended April 10, 2024, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 years, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marisol M. Alonso, J.), rendered May 7, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a jail term of 9 months, unanimously affirmed. The charge of disorderly conduct was properly included in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense, alongside the triggering offense of assault in the second degree, which was charged in the felony complaint ( see People v Pierce , 14 NY3d 564, 571 [2010]; People v Fields , 242 AD3d 524, 524 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1065 [2026]). Both charges were "based upon the same act or upon the same criminal transaction" (CPL 200.20[2][a]). The felony complaint alleged that, on March 8, 2022, while on the subway, defendant struck someone "about the head and face with a cane causing bruising, swelling, redness to his face[,] and substantial pain." Accordingly, the SCI properly charged defendant with second-degree assault and disorderly conduct, basing both charges upon this same alleged criminal act. Disorderly conduct is neither "a higher-grade offense than any contained in the felony complaint," nor does it contain "an additional aggravating element" compared to second-degree assault ( People v Perkins , 230 AD3d 977, 980 [1st Dept 2024]; see Penal Law §§ 120.05[2], 240.20). Defendant's contention that his subsequent guilty plea under indictment No. 73093/23 should be vacated in the event this Court reverses his conviction under SCI No. 70645/23 ( see People v Fuggazzatto , 62 NY2d 862, 863 [1984]) is rendered moot by this Court's affirmance of that prior conviction ( see People v Jean , 186 AD3d 1175 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 929 [2020]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026