People v. Zino
Docket 2024-05765
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 02425
- Docket
- 2024-05765
Appeal from an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss portions of the indictment for legal insufficiency of the grand jury evidence.
Summary
The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing two counts of a grand jury indictment against defendant Rony Zino. The charges—criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving—arose from an October 11, 2023 vehicle-pedestrian accident that resulted in the pedestrian's death. The court held the grand jury evidence, even viewed in the People’s favor, did not provide the prima facie proof required for those crimes because it failed to show the defendant engaged in the degree of blameworthy conduct or reckless disregard of consequences necessary for conviction.
Issues Decided
- Whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish criminally negligent homicide under Penal Law § 125.10.
- Whether the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish reckless driving under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212.
Court's Reasoning
To sustain dismissal review, the court views grand jury evidence in the light most favorable to the People and asks whether that evidence furnishes prima facie proof of each element. For criminally negligent homicide, the People failed to show the defendant's conduct involved the serious moral blameworthiness and failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk required by the statute and case law. For reckless driving, the evidence did not show operation of the vehicle under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard of the consequences, so the grand jury record was legally insufficient for that charge.
Authorities Cited
- Penal Law § 125.10
- Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212
- People v Jensen86 NY2d 248
- People v Bello92 NY2d 523
- People v Conway6 NY3d 869
- People v Boutin75 NY2d 692
Parties
- Appellant
- The People of the State of New York
- Respondent
- Rony Zino
- Judge
- Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
- Judge
- William G. Ford, J.
- Judge
- Helen Voutsinas, J.
- Judge
- Donna-Marie E. Golia, J.
- Attorney
- Melinda Katz, District Attorney (Johnnette Traill and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel)
- Attorney
- Nicholas Dayan
Key Dates
- Accident date
- 2023-10-11
- Supreme Court order dated
- 2024-05-28
- Appellate decision date
- 2026-04-22
What You Should Do Next
- 1
For the People: Review evidence and consider re-presentation
Evaluate the grand jury record to determine whether additional admissible evidence exists that could supply the missing prima facie elements before seeking re-presentation to a grand jury.
- 2
For the defense: Confirm dismissal is final and preserve record
Ensure the dismissed charges are reflected in the trial-court docket and consider filing any necessary motions to prevent re-presentation or to bar use of previously excluded evidence.
- 3
All parties: Consult counsel about appellate or procedural options
The People should consult with appellate counsel about whether to seek further review; the defense should discuss whether any collateral relief or protective filings are advisable.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of two indictment counts because the grand jury evidence did not legally establish the elements of criminally negligent homicide or reckless driving.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision affects the defendant, Rony Zino, by removing those two charges; the People may be affected because those charges cannot proceed based on the current grand jury record.
- What does 'legally insufficient grand jury evidence' mean here?
- It means that, even taking the evidence in the People’s favor, the record did not provide the required prima facie proof that the defendant’s conduct met the statutory elements of the charged offenses.
- Can the People retry or re-present the case to a grand jury?
- The decision does not address re-presentation; generally, the People may seek to present additional or different evidence to a grand jury, but they should consult prosecutors and follow applicable procedural rules.
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 Zino - 2026 NY Slip Op 02425 People v Zino 2026 NY Slip Op 02425 April 22, 2026 Appellate Division, Second Department The People of the State of New York, appellant, v Rony Zino, respondent. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on April 22, 2026 2024-05765, (Ind. No. 74215/23) Lara J. Genovesi, J.P. William G. Ford Helen Voutsinas Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for appellant. Nicholas Dayan, Kew Gardens, NY, for respondent. DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michael Aloise, J.), dated May 28, 2024. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient. ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. On October 11, 2023, a vehicle operated by the defendant allegedly struck a pedestrian crossing the street. The pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The defendant was arrested and charged by grand jury indictment with, among other crimes, criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10) and reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). The defendant moved, inter alia, to dismiss the indictment. In an order dated May 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient to sustain those charges. The People appeal. A court reviewing the legal sufficiency of an indictment must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and determine whether the evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would be legally sufficient to support a verdict of guilt after trial ( see People v Jensen , 86 NY2d 248, 251; People v Holloway , 210 AD3d 1007, 1007). In the context of grand jury proceedings, legal sufficiency means prima facie proof of the crimes charged, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Bello , 92 NY2d 523, 526; People v Dunn , 232 AD3d 806, 808). This Court's inquiry is limited to assessing whether the facts, if proven, and the logical inferences flowing therefrom, supply proof of each element of the charged crimes ( see People v Dunn , 232 AD3d at 808; People v Holloway , 210 AD3d at 1008). The existence of innocent inferences arising from the evidence has no bearing upon the legal sufficiency inquiry ( see People v Deegan , 69 NY2d 976, 979; People v Castro , 202 AD3d 815, 816). "A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, he [or she] causes the death of another person" (Penal Law § 125.10). A person acts with criminal negligence in this context when that person "fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk" that death will result ( id. § 15.05[4]; see People v Gaworecki , 37 NY3d 225, 230). "[T]he carelessness required for criminal negligence is appreciably more serious than that for ordinary civil negligence, and . . . the carelessness must be such that its seriousness would be apparent to anyone who shares the community's general sense of right and wrong" ( People v Boutin , 75 NY2d 692, 695-696). "Moreover, criminal negligence requires a defendant to have engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of a proscribed result; nonperception of a risk, even if the proscribed result occurs, is not enough" ( People v Conway , 6 NY3d 869, 872 [brackets and internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cabrera , 10 NY3d 370, 376). Here, the evidence presented to the grand jury, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, did not demonstrate that the defendant's conduct rose to the level of moral blameworthiness required to sustain a charge of criminally negligent homicide ( see People v McGrantham , 12 NY3d 892, 894; People v Cabrera , 10 NY3d at 377). In addition, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the count of the indictment charging the defendant with reckless driving ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally insufficient to support the charge that the defendant operated his vehicle "under such circumstances as to show a reckless disregard of the consequences" ( People v Grogan , 260 NY 138, 144; see People v Pino , 162 AD3d 910, 912). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the counts of the indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally insufficient. GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur. ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph