People v. Urena
Docket Ind. No. 70651/23|Appeal No. 6476|Case No. 2024-06760|
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 02613
- Docket numbers
- Ind. No70651/23Appeal No6476Case No2024-06760
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea and sentencing to probation in Supreme Court, Bronx County
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Yordani Urena’s conviction following a guilty plea to second-degree assault and the three-year probation sentence, but modified the probation by striking fees and mandatory surcharge. The court declined to review an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to a probation condition restricting association and places, and alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the association/frequenting condition reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, but concluded that imposing court fees and the mandatory surcharge was not related to rehabilitation and therefore removed that condition.
Issues Decided
- Whether a probation condition prohibiting associating with disreputable persons and frequenting disreputable places is unconstitutional on its face or otherwise unreasonable
- Whether the probation condition limiting association and places was reasonably necessary to ensure rehabilitation and public safety
- Whether the probation condition requiring payment of mandatory surcharge and fees is reasonably related to rehabilitation and thus permissible
Court's Reasoning
The court declined to consider the facial constitutional challenge as unpreserved but, alternatively, found it meritless by relying on precedent that upholds association/frequenting restrictions when reasonably necessary given the offense. The violent nature of defendant's crime supported the court's determination that the association/frequenting condition was reasonably related to ensuring a law-abiding life. By contrast, the court held that mandatory surcharge and fees do not reasonably relate to rehabilitation and therefore must be stricken from the probation conditions.
Authorities Cited
- Penal Law § 65.10(1)
- People v Johnson2025 NY Slip Op 06528
- People v Andujar245 AD3d 529 (1st Dept 2026)
- People v Wood239 AD3d 484 (1st Dept 2025)
- People v Percy234 AD3d 619 (1st Dept 2025)
- People v Berkley241 AD3d 1167 (1st Dept 2025)
Parties
- Appellant
- Yordani Urena
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Webber, J.P.
- Judge
- Mendez, J.
- Judge
- Rodriguez, J.
- Judge
- O'Neill Levy, J.
- Judge
- Michael, J.
Key Dates
- Decision Date
- 2026-04-28
- Judgment Date
- 2024-10-23
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Comply with modified probation terms
The defendant should follow all remaining probation conditions, including avoiding prohibited associations and places, and report to probation as required.
- 2
Confirm fees removed in sentencing records
Counsel or the defendant should ensure the sentencing and probation paperwork is updated to reflect that mandatory surcharge and fees have been stricken.
- 3
Consider preservation for future challenges
If challenging similar probation conditions in other cases, counsel should preserve constitutional objections at sentencing to avoid forfeiture on appeal.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the conviction and probation term but removed the requirement that the defendant pay mandatory surcharges and fees; it left the association/frequenting restriction in place.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Defendant Yordani Urena is directly affected; the decision also guides how similar probation conditions and court-ordered fees are treated in this appellate department.
- Why were the fees removed from probation?
- The court found the mandatory surcharge and fees were not reasonably related to the defendant's rehabilitation or ensuring a law-abiding life, so they were stricken.
- Can the restriction on associating with certain people be challenged?
- The court declined to reach an unpreserved facial constitutional challenge but upheld the condition as reasonably necessary given the violent nature of the offense, so such challenges must be preserved or argued on the merits with supporting facts.
- What happens next for the defendant?
- The probation remains in force without the payment condition; the defendant must comply with the remaining conditions, including the association/frequenting restriction.
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 Urena - 2026 NY Slip Op 02613 People v Urena 2026 NY Slip Op 02613 April 28, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yordani Urena, Appellant. Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026 Ind. No. 70651/23|Appeal No. 6476|Case No. 2024-06760| Before: Webber, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ. Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Danielle J. Krumholz of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Rafael Curbelo of counsel), for respondent. Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Connie Morales, J.), rendered October 23, 2024, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a three-year term of probation, unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of striking the condition of probation that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Defendant's claim that the condition of his probation requiring him to "[a]void injurious or vicious habits; refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places; and not consort with disreputable people" is facially unconstitutional is unpreserved ( see People v Johnson , — NY3d —, —; 2025 NY Slip Op 06528, *2 [2025]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find the claim to be unavailing ( People v Andujar , 245 AD3d 529, 530 [1st Dept 2026]). Defendant's contention that this condition of probation is not "reasonably necessary to insure that [he] will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do so" (Penal Law § 65.10 [1]) does not require preservation ( see People v Lowndes , 239 AD3d 574, 575 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1012 [2025]; People v Alvarez , 233 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2024], lv denied 43 NY3d 961 [2025]). However, the court providently deemed this condition as reasonably necessary, given the violent nature of his criminal conduct ( see People v Berkley , 241 AD3d 1167, 1168 [1st Dept 2025]). We strike the condition of probation which requires that defendant pay the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, as not reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation, or necessary to ensure that he will lead a law-abiding life ( see People v Wood , 239 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2025]; People v Percy , 234 AD3d 619 [1st Dept 2025]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 28, 2026