Case Name: In the Matter of Darvin M., Appellant, v. Thomas L. Jacobs, as Commissioner of the Office of Probation, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1987-05-05
Citations: 69 N.Y.2d 957
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Darvin M., Appellant, v Thomas L. Jacobs, as Commissioner of the Office of Probation, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 957–964

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Darvin M., Appellant, v Thomas L. Jacobs, as Commissioner of the Office of Probation, et al., Respondents.
Argued March 23, 1987;
decided May 5, 1987
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Michele S. Maxian and Caesar D. Cirigliano for appellant.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Michael S. Adler and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for Thomas L. Jacobs, as Commissioner of the Office of Probation and another, respondents.
Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Barbara D. Underwood and Andrew J. Frisch of counsel), respondent pro se.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Abigail Peterson, O. Peter Sherwood and Douglas D. Aronin of counsel), for Francis X. Egitto, as Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner brought a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondents from allowing New York City Department of Probation attorneys to participate as counsel in a probation revocation proceeding brought against him. The Appellate Division properly denied the requested relief. It cannot be said that respondent New York City Department of Probation is clearly acting "in excess of its authorized powers" (Matter of Jacobs v Altman, 69 NY2d 733, 734; see, Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62) in functioning as counsel in presenting probation violations at revocation hearings (see, Executive Law § 243, 255 [3]; CPL 410.70; 9 NYCRR 352.1 [e]; 352.3 [b] [2]; 352.4 [a] [1]; 355.3 [b] [1]). While a District Attorney may present evidence of alleged violations at revocation hearings, the Department of Probation is not usurping authority vested exclusively in the District Attorney under County Law § 927 by participating as counsel.
A violation of probation giving rise to revocation proceedings is not a "crime" or "offense" (see, Penal Law § 10.00 [1], [6]) which, pursuant to the County Law, must be prosecuted by a District Attorney (see, County Law § 700, 927). Nor is a revocation proceeding a "criminal action" (CPL 1.20 [16]) under the Criminal Procedure Law at which a "prosecutor" represents the People (CPL 1.20 [31]). A "criminal action" terminates upon sentencing (see, CPL 1.20 [16]; cf, Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46). A probation revocation, in contrast, is a "criminal proceeding" brought after the completed "criminal action" (see, CPL 1.20 [18]). Its purpose is to determine if defendant's subsequent acts violate the conditions of the original sentence not whether the acts constitute a crime.